U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–642 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–183

NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1003

NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 2005

JULY 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

JEANNE BUMPUS, Majority Staff Director

SARA G. GARLAND, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

S. 1003, text of ......................................................................................................... 3

Statements:

Bavasi, Christopher J., executive director, Office of Navajo and Hopi

Indian Relocation .......................................................................................... 58

Bitsue, Roman, executive director, Navajo-Hopi Land Commission Office . 66

Denetsosie, Louis, attorney general, Navajo Nation ..................................... 69

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii ....................................... 57

McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, chairman, Committee

on Indian Affairs ........................................................................................... 1

Ragsdale, William P., director, BIA, Department of the Interior ................. 57

Shirley, Jr., Joe, president, Navajo Nation .................................................... 63

Taylor, Jr., Wayne, tribal chairman, Hopi Tribe ........................................... 70

Tessler, Paul, legal counsel, Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . 58

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Bavasi, Christopher J. ...................................................................................... 77

Bitsue, Roman (with attachment) ................................................................... 82

Denetsosie, Louis .............................................................................................. 149

Ragsdale, William P. ........................................................................................ 78

Shirley, Jr., Joe ................................................................................................. 79

Taylor, Jr., Wayne (with attachment) ............................................................. 157

(1)

NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2005

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room 485,

Senate Russell Building, Hon. John McCain (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators McCain, Dorgan, and Inouye.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

ARIZONA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning.

I want to thank Senator Inouye for stopping by this morning because he is one of those who has been involved in this issue for

many years, as I have. Senator Inouye, for the record, one of my

earliest memories was in 1983 when I was a member of the House,

now 22 years ago, traveling to Navajo and Hopi lands and having

a long series of meetings with Congressman Udall, then chairman

of the Interior Committee, to try to get the issue of Navajo-Hopi

land disputes settled, one of the few times in Mo Udall’s career he

was not successful.

Then I know when I came to the Senate in 1987, this issue again

was before the committee, the issue of the Bennett freeze, how

many families needed to be located, how soon would we be able to

terminate this. And now we have spent since 1974 now 31 years

we have spent $483 million and witnesses will come before this

committee today and say we are still not finished.

It is going to be over. It is going to be over. It is going to be over.

It is time it ended. It is time that we brought to a conclusion this

tragedy that has afflicted human beings on the Navajo and Hopi

Reservations for too long.

I guess, and I would be interested in hearing my colleague from

Hawaii’s comments, maybe the lesson is you should not try to settle land disputes through legislation. That may be one of the lessons we have learned here since 1974.

I do not diminish in any way the human tragedy that has been

associated with this issue. Witnesses today are as well aware of

that as I am. I am also aware that is a limited amount of American

taxpayer’s dollars that could be devoted to worthy causes on both

the Navajo and Hopi Reservations: Educational facilities, health

care facilities, housing, and many others.

I want to emphasize, we have to bring closure to this. On many

occasions in the past, all through the 1980’s and 1990’s, I was told

just a few more years, just a few more years, just a few more years.
2

The year is now 2005, $483 million spent in the meantime. It is

time to bring closure.

I want to clarify that the bill is not intended to alter prior court

decisions on land claims or to impact on ongoing negotiations between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes. I commend you for the progress

that is being made. I also understand there is a strong desire to

address the deplorable conditions on the Bennett Freeze. I, too,

want to address this in separate legislation.

When enacted in 1974, the Navajo and Hopi relocation process

was intended as a temporary means to relocate families who were

living on the disputed land on December 22, 1974, 31 years ago.

The act originally intended that relocation activities would be completed by 1986, and that the total cost would be $40 million. Since

its inception, the relocation process has been plagued with controversy and delay and the Congress has had to amend the act several times to expand the relocation activity and provide additional

appropriations.

I recognize the deep emotional toll that relocation has taken on

the Navajo and Hopi Tribes and to the individual relocatees. But

after 31 years of identifying and relocating eligible applicants and

appropriations of one-half billion dollars, it is time to bring the relocation program to a close.

This bill intends that by September 2008, the relocation office

will transfer remaining responsibilities and necessary personnel

and funding to the Department of the Interior.

Thereafter the Federal Government will no longer be obligated to

provide replacement homes for eligible relocatees. The funds to provide these homes will be placed in trust with Interior for dissemination to eligible relocatees or their heirs. All other necessary relocation activity will be administered by the department until these

activities are complete.

In 1996, I introduced a bill that would have phased out the relocation program by September 2001. At a hearing on that bill, many

witnesses stated that this was a reasonable timeline to complete

the activity, but opposition remained due to the pending approval

of the accommodation lease agreements by the Department of the

Interior. That activity is now complete and an additional 9 years

have passed in which additional relocation activity has occurred.

I commend the relocation office for its ongoing efforts to implement this complex program. I understand that you have reviewed

over 4,600 applications, considered numerous appeals and provided

relocation homes for over 3,600 families. You have also provided

funding to both tribes to address the impacts of relocation.

I welcome you all to the hearing and I look forward to your testimony on this important matter.

[Text of S. 1003 follows:]
3

1

II

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1003

To amend the Act of December 22, 1974, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 11, 2005

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Act of December 22, 1974, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Amendments of 2005’’.

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of

7 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE NAVAJO-HOPI LAND

SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1974

Sec. 101. Repeal of sections.

Sec. 102. Definitions; division of land.

Sec. 103. Joint ownership of minerals.

Sec. 104. Actions.
4

2

•S 1003 IS

Sec. 105. Paiute Indian allotments.

Sec. 106. Partitioned and other designated land.

Sec. 107. Resettlement land for Navajo Tribe.

Sec. 108. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.

Sec. 109. Report.

Sec. 110. Relocation of households and members.

Sec. 111. Relocation housing.

Sec. 112. Payment for use of land.

Sec. 113. Effect of Act.

Sec. 114. Actions for accounting, fair value of grazing, and claims for damages

to land.

Sec. 115. Joint use.

Sec. 116. Religious ceremonies; piping of water.

Sec. 117. Access to religious shrines.

Sec. 118. Exclusion of payments from certain Federal determinations of income.

Sec. 119. Authorization of exchange.

Sec. 120. Severability.

Sec. 121. Authorization of appropriations.

Sec. 122. Funding and construction of high school and medical center.

Sec. 123. Environmental impact; wilderness study; cancellation of leases and

permits.

Sec. 124. Attorney fees and court costs.

Sec. 125. Lobbying.

Sec. 126. Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund.

Sec. 127. Availability of funds for relocation assistance.

TITLE II—PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI

INDIAN RELOCATION

Sec. 201. Retention preference.

Sec. 202. Separation pay.

Sec. 203. Federal retirement.

TITLE III—TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Definitions.

Sec. 302. Transfer of functions.

Sec. 303. Transfer and allocations of appropriations.

Sec. 304. Effect of title.

1 TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE

2 ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1974

3 SEC. 101. REPEAL OF SECTIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Act of December 22, 1974

5 (25 U.S.C. 640d et seq.) is amended in the first undesig6 nated section by striking ‘‘That, (a) within’’ and all that

7 follows through the end of the section.
5

3

•S 1003 IS

1 (b) ADDITIONAL REPEALS.—Sections 2 through 5

2 and sections 26 and 30 of the Act of December 22, 1974

3 (25 U.S.C. 640d–1 through 640d–4; 88 Stat. 1723; 25

4 U.S.C. 640d–28) are repealed.

5 SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS; DIVISION OF LAND.

6 Section 6 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

7 U.S.C. 640d–5) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 6. The Mediator’’ and all

9 that follows through subsection (f) and inserting the

10 following:

11 ‘‘SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

12 ‘‘In this Act:

13 ‘‘(1) DISTRICT COURT.—The term ‘District

14 Court’ means the United States District Court for

15 the District of Arizona.

16 ‘‘(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘Secretary’ means

17 the Secretary of the Interior.

18 ‘‘(3) TRIBE.—The term ‘Tribe’ means—

19 ‘‘(A) the Navajo Indian Tribe; and

20 ‘‘(B) the Hopi Indian Tribe.

21 ‘‘SEC. 2. DIVISION OF LAND.

22 ‘‘(a) DIVISION.—

23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The land located within the

24 boundaries of the reservation established by Execu-
6

4

•S 1003 IS

1 tive order on December 16, 1982, shall be divided

2 into parcels of equal acreage and quality—

3 ‘‘(A) to the maximum extent practicable;

4 and

5 ‘‘(B) in accordance with the final order

6 issued by the District Court on August 30,

7 1978 (providing for the partition of the surface

8 rights and interest of the Tribes).

9 ‘‘(2) VALUATION OF PARCELS.—For the pur10 pose of calculating the value of a parcel produced by

11 a division under paragraph (1), the Secretary

12 shall—

13 ‘‘(A) take into account any improvement

14 on the land; and

15 ‘‘(B) consider the grazing capacity of the

16 land to be fully restored.

17 ‘‘(3) COMPENSATION BY TRIBES.—If the parti18 tion under paragraph (1) results in parcels of un19 equal value, as determined by the Secretary, the

20 Tribe that receives the more valuable parcel shall

21 pay to the other Tribe compensation in an amount

22 equal to the difference in the values of the parcels,

23 as determined by the Secretary.

24 ‘‘(4) COMPENSATION BY FEDERAL GOVERN25 MENT.—If the District Court determines that the
7

5

•S 1003 IS

1 failure of the Federal Government to fulfill an obli2 gation of the Government decreased the value of a

3 parcel under paragraph (1), the Government shall

4 pay to the recipient of the parcel compensation in an

5 amount equal to the difference between—

6 ‘‘(A) the decreased value of the parcel; and

7 ‘‘(B) the value of the fully restored par8 cel.’’;

9 (2) by striking ‘‘(g) Any’’ and inserting the fol10 lowing:

11 ‘‘(b) LICENSE FEES AND RENTS.—Any’’; and

12 (3) by striking ‘‘(h) Any’’ and inserting the fol13 lowing:

14 ‘‘(c) GRAZING AND AGRICULTURAL USE.—Any’’.

15 SEC. 103. JOINT OWNERSHIP OF MINERALS.

16 Section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

17 U.S.C. 640d–6) is amended—

18 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 7. Partition’’ and insert19 ing the following:

20 ‘‘SEC. 3. JOINT OWNERSHIP OF MINERALS.

21 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Partition’’; and

22 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘All’’

23 and inserting the following:

24 ‘‘(b) JOINT MANAGEMENT.—All’’.
8

6

•S 1003 IS

1 SEC. 104. ACTIONS.

2 Section 8 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

3 U.S.C. 640d–7) is amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 8. (a) Either Tribe’’ and

5 inserting the following:

6 ‘‘SEC. 4. ACTIONS.

7 ‘‘(a) ACTIONS IN DISTRICT COURT.—Either Tribe’’;

8 (2) in subsection (b)—

9 (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘(b)

10 Lands, if any,’’ and inserting the following:

11 ‘‘(b) ALLOCATION OF LAND.—

12 ‘‘(1) NAVAJO RESERVATION.—Any land’’;

13 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

14 ‘‘Lands, if any,’’ and inserting the following:

15 ‘‘(2) HOPI RESERVATION.—Any land’’; and

16 (C) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘Any

17 lands’’ and inserting the following:

18 ‘‘(3) JOINT AND UNDIVIDED INTERESTS.—Any

19 land’’;

20 (3) in subsection (c)—

21 (A) by striking ‘‘(c)(1) Either’’ and insert22 ing the following:

23 ‘‘(c) EXCHANGE OF LAND.—

24 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Either’’;

25 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2) In

26 the event’’ and inserting the following:
9

7

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(2) INTERESTS OF TRIBES.—If’’;

2 (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘(3) Nei3 ther’’ and inserting the following:

4 ‘‘(3) DEFENSE.—Neither’’; and

5 (D) by striking ‘‘section 18’’ each place it

6 appears and inserting ‘‘section 14’’;

7 (4) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘(d) Nothing’’

8 and inserting the following:

9 ‘‘(d) EFFECT OF SECTION.—Nothing’’;

10 (5) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘(e) The’’ and

11 inserting the following:

12 ‘‘(e) PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES, COURT COSTS, AND

13 OTHER EXPENSES.—The’’; and

14 (6) by striking subsection (f).

15 SEC. 105. PAIUTE INDIAN ALLOTMENTS.

16 Section 9 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

17 U.S.C. 640d–8) is amended by striking ‘‘SEC. 9. Notwith18 standing’’ and inserting the following:

19 ‘‘SEC. 5. PAIUTE INDIAN ALLOTMENTS.

20 ‘‘Notwithstanding’’.

21 SEC. 106. PARTITIONED AND OTHER DESIGNATED LAND.

22 Section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

23 U.S.C. 640d–9) is amended—

24 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 10. (a) Subject’’ and in25 serting the following:
10

8

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 6. PARTITIONED AND OTHER DESIGNATED LAND.

2 ‘‘(a) NAVAJO TRUST LAND.—Subject’’;

3 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘section 9 and

4 subsection (a) of section 17’’ and inserting ‘‘sections

5 5 and 13(a)’’;

6 (3) in subsection (b)—

7 (A) by striking ‘‘(b) Subject’’ and inserting

8 the following:

9 ‘‘(b) HOPI TRUST LAND.—Subject’’;

10 (B) by striking ‘‘section 9 and subsection

11 (a) of section 17’’ and inserting ‘‘sections 5 and

12 13(a)’’;

13 (C) by striking ‘‘section 3 or 4’’ and in14 serting ‘‘section 1’’; and

15 (D) by striking ‘‘section 8’’ and inserting

16 ‘‘section 4’’;

17 (4) in subsection (c)—

18 (A) by striking ‘‘(c) The’’ and inserting the

19 following:

20 ‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PROPERTY.—

21 The’’; and

22 (B) by striking ‘‘pursuant thereto’’ and all

23 that follows through the end of the subsection

24 and inserting ‘‘pursuant to this Act’’;

25 (5) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘(d) With’’

26 and inserting the following:
11

9

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(d) PROTECTION OF BENEFITS AND SERVICES.—

2 With’’; and

3 (6) in subsection (e)—

4 (A) by striking ‘‘(e)(1) Lands’’ and insert5 ing the following:

6 ‘‘(e) TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER PARTITIONED

7 LAND.—

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Land’’;

9 (B) by adjusting the margins of subpara10 graphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) appro11 priately; and

12 (C) in the matter following subparagraph

13 (B)—

14 (i) by striking ‘‘The provisions’’ and

15 inserting the following:

16 ‘‘(2) RESPONSIBILITY OF SECRETARY.—The

17 provisions’’; and

18 (ii) by striking ‘‘life tenants and’’.

19 SEC. 107. RESETTLEMENT LAND FOR NAVAJO TRIBE.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11(a) of the Act of De21 cember 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–10(a)) is amended—

22 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 11. (a) The Secretary’’

23 and inserting the following:

24 ‘‘SEC. 7. RESETTLEMENT LAND FOR NAVAJO TRIBE.

25 ‘‘(a) TRANSFER OF LAND.—
12

10

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’;

2 (2) by striking ‘‘(1) transfer not to exceed two

3 hundred and fifty thousand acres of lands’’ and in4 serting the following:

5 ‘‘(A) transfer not more than 250,000 acres

6 of land’’;

7 (3) by striking ‘‘Tribe: Provided, That’’ and all

8 that follows through ‘‘as possible.’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘Tribe; and’’;

10 (4) in the first paragraph designated as para11 graph (2)—

12 (A) by striking ‘‘(2) on behalf’’ and insert13 ing the following:

14 ‘‘(B) on behalf’’; and

15 (B) by striking the second sentence;

16 (5) in the matter following paragraph (1)(B)

17 (as redesignated by paragraph (4))—

18 (A) in the first sentence—

19 (i) by striking ‘‘Subject to’’ and all

20 that follows through ‘‘all rights’’ and in21 serting the following:

22 ‘‘(4) REQUIREMENTS OF TRANSFER.—

23 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to this para24 graph, all rights’’; and
13

11

•S 1003 IS

1 (ii) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ and

2 inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)’’;

3 (B) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘So

4 long as’’ and inserting the following:

5 ‘‘(B) COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS.—

6 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—If’’;

7 (C) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘If

8 such adjudication’’ and inserting the following:

9 ‘‘(ii) ISSUANCE OF LEASES.—If an ad10 judication under clause (i)’’;

11 (D) in the fourth sentence, by striking

12 ‘‘The leaseholders rights and interests’’ and in13 serting the following:

14 ‘‘(iii) RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF

15 LEASEHOLDERS.—The rights and interests

16 of a holder of a lease described in clause

17 (i)’’; and

18 (E) in the fifth sentence, by striking ‘‘If

19 any’’ and inserting the following:

20 ‘‘(C) CLAIMS UNDER MINING LAW.—If

21 any’’;

22 (6) by inserting after paragraph (1)(B) (as re23 designated by paragraph (4)) the following:

24 ‘‘(2) EXCHANGE OF LAND.—
14

12

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In order to facilitate a

2 transfer of land under paragraph (1)(A), the

3 Secretary may exchange land described in para4 graph (1)(A) for State or private land of equal

5 value.

6 ‘‘(B) UNEQUAL VALUE.—If the State or

7 private land described in subparagraph (A) is of

8 unequal value to the land described in para9 graph (1)(A), the recipient of the land that is

10 of greater value shall pay to the other party to

11 the exchange under subparagraph (A) com12 pensation in an amount not to exceed the lesser

13 of—

14 ‘‘(i) the difference between the values

15 of the land exchanged; or

16 ‘‘(ii) the amount that is 25 percent of

17 the total value of the land transferred from

18 the Secretary to the Navajo Tribe.

19 ‘‘(C) RESPONSIBILITY OF SECRETARY.—

20 The Secretary shall ensure that the amount of

21 a payment under subparagraph (B) is as mini22 mal as practicable.

23 ‘‘(3) TITLE TO LAND ACCEPTED.—The Sec24 retary shall accept title to land under paragraph

25 (1)(B) on behalf of the United States in trust for
15

13

•S 1003 IS

1 the benefit of the Navajo Tribe as a part of the Nav2 ajo reservation.’’; and

3 (7) in the second paragraph designated as para4 graph (2)—

5 (A) in the first sentence—

6 (i) by striking ‘‘(2) Those’’ and insert7 ing the following:

8 ‘‘(5) STATE RIGHTS.—

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The’’; and

10 (ii) by striking ‘‘subsection 2 of this

11 section’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)(B)’’;

12 and

13 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

14 ‘‘The’’ and inserting the following:

15 ‘‘(B) STATE INTERESTS.—The’’.

16 (b) PROXIMITY OF LAND; EXCHANGES OF LAND.—

17 Section 11(b) of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C.

18 640d–10(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘(b) A border’’ and

19 inserting the following:

20 ‘‘(b) PROXIMITY OF LAND TO BE TRANSFERRED OR

21 ACQUIRED.—A border’’.

22 (c) SELECTION OF LAND.—Section 11(c) of the Act

23 of December 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–10(c)) is

24 amended—
16

14

•S 1003 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(c) Lands’’ and inserting the

2 following:

3 ‘‘(c) SELECTION OF LAND TO BE TRANSFERRED OR

4 ACQUIRED.—Land’’; and

5 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert6 ing the following: ‘‘: Provided further, That the au7 thority of the Commissioner to select lands under

8 this subsection shall terminate on September 30,

9 2008.’’.

10 (d) REPORTS.—Section 11(d) of the Act of December

11 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–10(d)) is amended by striking

12 ‘‘(d) The’’ and inserting the following:

13 ‘‘(d) REPORTS.—The’’.

14 (e) PAYMENTS.—Section 11(e) of the Act of Decem15 ber 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–10(e)) is amended by strik16 ing ‘‘(e) Payments’’ and inserting the following:

17 ‘‘(e) PAYMENTS.—Payments’’.

18 (f) ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO SURFACE AND SUB19 SURFACE INTERESTS.—Section 11(f) of the Act of Decem20 ber 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–10(f)) is amended—

21 (1) by striking ‘‘(f)(1) For’’ and inserting the

22 following:

23 ‘‘(f) ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO SURFACE AND SUB24 SURFACE INTERESTS.—

25 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For’’;
17

15

•S 1003 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2) If’’ and

2 inserting the following:

3 ‘‘(2) PUBLIC NOTICE; REPORT.—If’’; and

4 (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘(3) In any

5 case where’’ and inserting the following:

6 ‘‘(3) RIGHTS OF SUBSURFACE OWNERS.—If’’.

7 (g) LAND NOT AVAILABLE FOR TRANSFER.—Section

8 11(g) of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–

9 10(g)) is amended by striking ‘‘(g) No’’ and inserting the

10 following:

11 ‘‘(g) LAND NOT AVAILABLE FOR TRANSFER.—No’’.

12 (h) ADMINISTRATION OF LAND TRANSFERRED OR

13 ACQUIRED.—Section 11(h) of the Act of December 22,

14 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–10(h)) is amended—

15 (1) by striking ‘‘(h) The lands’’ and inserting

16 the following:

17 ‘‘(h) ADMINISTRATION OF LAND TRANSFERRED OR

18 ACQUIRED.—

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The land’’; and

20 (2) by adding at the end the following:

21 ‘‘(2) RELOCATION.—

22 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In order to facilitate

23 relocation of a member of a Tribe, the Commis24 sioner may grant a homesite lease on land ac25 quired under this section to a member of the
18

16

•S 1003 IS

1 extended family of a Navajo Indian who is cer2 tified as eligible to receive benefits under this

3 Act.

4 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—The Commissioner

5 may not use any funds available to the Commis6 sioner to carry out this Act to provide housing

7 to an extended family member described in sub8 paragraph (A).’’.

9 (i) NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING LAND EXCHANGES

10 AND LEASES.—Section 11(i) of the Act of December 22,

11 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–10(i)) is amended—

12 (1) by striking ‘‘(i) The’’ and inserting the fol13 lowing:

14 ‘‘(i) NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING LAND EXCHANGES

15 AND LEASES.—The’’; and

16 (2) by striking ‘‘section 23’’ and inserting ‘‘sec17 tion 19’’.

18 SEC. 108. OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCA19 TION.

20 Section 12 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

21 U.S.C. 640d–11) is amended—

22 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 12. (a) There is hereby’’

23 and inserting the following:
19

17

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 8. OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCA2 TION.

3 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is’’;

4 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘(b) The’’ and

5 inserting the following:

6 ‘‘(b) APPOINTMENT.—The’’;

7 (3) in subsection (c)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘(c)(1)(A) Except’’ and in9 serting the following:

10 ‘‘(c) CONTINUATION OF POWERS.—

11 ‘‘(1) POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMISSIONER;

12 EXISTING FUNDS.—

13 ‘‘(A) POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMIS14 SIONER.—Except’’;

15 (B) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘(B)

16 All’’ and inserting the following:

17 ‘‘(B) EXISTING FUNDS.—All’’; and

18 (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2)

19 There are hereby’’ and inserting the following:

20 ‘‘(2) TRANSFER OF POWERS.—There are’’;

21 (4) in subsection (d)—

22 (A) by striking ‘‘(d)(1) Subject’’ and in23 serting the following:

24 ‘‘(d) POWERS OF COMMISSIONER.—

25 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject’’;
20

18

•S 1003 IS

1 (B) by adjusting the margins of subpara2 graphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) appro3 priately;

4 (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2)

5 The’’ and inserting the following:

6 ‘‘(2) CONTRACTS.—The’’; and

7 (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘(3)

8 There’’ and inserting the following:

9 ‘‘(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

10 There’’;

11 (5) in subsection (e)—

12 (A) by striking ‘‘(e)(1)’’ and inserting the

13 following:

14 ‘‘(e) ADMINISTRATION.—

15 ‘‘(1) ADMINISTRATIVE, FISCAL, AND HOUSE16 KEEPING SERVICES.—

17 (B) in paragraph (1)—

18 (i) in the first sentence, by striking

19 ‘‘The’’ and inserting the following:

20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The’’; and

21 (ii) in the second sentence, by striking

22 ‘‘In any’’ and inserting the following:

23 ‘‘(B) ASSISTANCE FROM DEPARTMENTS

24 AND AGENCIES.—In any’’; and
21

19

•S 1003 IS

1 (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2) On’’

2 and inserting the following:

3 ‘‘(2) FAILURE TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.—On’’;

4 (6) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the

5 following:

6 ‘‘(f) TERMINATION.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Office of Navajo and

8 Hopi Indian Relocation shall terminate on Septem9 ber 30, 2008.

10 ‘‘(2) TRANSFER OF OFFICE DUTIES.—On the

11 date of termination of the Office, any duty of the

12 Office that has not been carried out, as determined

13 in accordance with this Act, shall be transferred to

14 the Secretary in accordance with title III of the Nav15 ajo-Hopi Land Settlement Amendments of 2005.’’;

16 and

17 (7) by adding at the end the following:

18 ‘‘(g) OFFICE OF RELOCATION.—

19 ‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Effective on October

20 1, 2006, there is established in the Department of

21 the Interior an Office of Relocation.

22 ‘‘(2) DUTIES.—The Secretary, acting through

23 the Office of Relocation, shall carry out the duties

24 of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

25 that are transferred to the Secretary in accordance
22

20

•S 1003 IS

1 with title III of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement

2 Amendments of 2005.

3 ‘‘(3) TERMINATION.—The Office of Relocation

4 shall terminate on the date on which the Secretary

5 determines that the duties of the Office have been

6 carried out.’’.

7 SEC. 109. REPORT.

8 Section 13 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

9 U.S.C. 640d–12) is amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 13. (a) By no’’ and in11 serting the following:

12 ‘‘SEC. 9. REPORT.

13 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not’’; and

14 (2) in subsection (b)—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘(b) The’’ and inserting

16 the following:

17 ‘‘(b) INCLUSIONS.—The’’; and

18 (B) by striking ‘‘contain, among other

19 matters, the following:’’ and inserting ‘‘in20 clude—’’.

21 SEC. 110. RELOCATION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND MEMBERS.

22 Section 14 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

23 U.S.C. 640d–13) is amended—

24 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 14. (a)’’ and inserting the

25 following:
23

21

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 10. RELOCATION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND MEMBERS.

2 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—’’;

3 (2) in subsection (a)—

4 (A) in the first sentence—

5 (i) by striking ‘‘Consistent’’ and in6 serting the following:

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Consistent’’;

8 (ii) by striking ‘‘section 8’’ each place

9 it appears and inserting ‘‘section 4’’; and

10 (iii) by striking ‘‘section 3 or 4’’ and

11 inserting ‘‘section 1’’;

12 (B) by striking the second sentence;

13 (C) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘No

14 further’’ and inserting the following:

15 ‘‘(2) SETTLEMENTS OF NAVAJO.—No further’’;

16 (D) in the fourth sentence, by striking ‘‘No

17 further’’ and inserting the following:

18 ‘‘(3) SETTLEMENTS OF HOPI.—No further’’;

19 and

20 (E) in the fifth sentence, by striking ‘‘No

21 individual’’ and inserting the following:

22 ‘‘(4) GRAZING.—No individual’’;

23 (3) in subsection (b)—

24 (A) by striking ‘‘(b) In addition’’ and in25 serting the following:
24

22

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(b) ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO HEADS OF HOUSE2 HOLDS—In addition’’;

3 (B) by striking ‘‘section 15’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘section 11’’; and

5 (C) by striking ‘‘section 13’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘section 9’’;

7 (4) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘(c) No’’ and

8 inserting the following:

9 ‘‘(c) PAYMENTS FOR PERSONS MOVING AFTER A

10 CERTAIN DATE.—No’’; and

11 (5) by adding at the end the following:

12 ‘‘(d) PROHIBITION.—No payment for benefits under

13 this Act may be made to any head of a household if, as

14 of September 30, 2005, that head of household has not

15 been certified as eligible to receive the payment.’’.

16 SEC. 111. RELOCATION HOUSING.

17 Section 15 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

18 U.S.C. 640d–14) is amended—

19 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 15. (a)’’ and inserting the

20 following:

21 ‘‘SEC. 11. RELOCATION HOUSING.

22 ‘‘(a) PURCHASE OF HABITATION AND IMPROVE23 MENTS.—’’;

24 (2) in subsection (a)—
25

23

•S 1003 IS

1 (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘The

2 Commission’’ and inserting the following:

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission’’; and

4 (B) in the second sentence—

5 (i) by striking ‘‘The purchase’’ and in6 serting the following:

7 ‘‘(2) PURCHASE PRICE.—The purchase’’; and

8 (ii) by striking ‘‘as determined under

9 clause (2) of subsection (b) of section 13’’;

10 (3) in subsection (b)—

11 (A) by striking ‘‘(b) In addition’’ and in12 serting the following:

13 ‘‘(b) REIMBURSEMENT FOR MOVING EXPENSES AND

14 PAYMENT FOR REPLACEMENT DWELLING.—In addition’’;

15 (B) by striking ‘‘shall:’’ and inserting

16 ‘‘shall—’’; and

17 (C) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and’’

18 after the semicolon at the end;

19 (4) in subsection (c)—

20 (A) by striking ‘‘(c) In implementing’’ and

21 inserting the following:

22 ‘‘(c) STANDARDS; CERTAIN PAYMENTS.—

23 ‘‘(1) STANDARDS.—In carrying out’’; and

24 (B) in the second sentence—
26

24

•S 1003 IS

1 (i) by striking ‘‘No payment’’ and in2 serting the following:

3 ‘‘(2) CERTAIN PAYMENTS.—No payment’’;

4 (ii) by striking ‘‘section 8’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘section 4’’; and

6 (iii) by striking ‘‘section 3 or 4’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘section 1’’;

8 (5) in subsection (d)—

9 (A) by striking ‘‘(d) The’’ and inserting

10 the following:

11 ‘‘(d) METHODS OF PAYMENT.—The’’;

12 (B) by striking ‘‘(1) Should’’ and inserting

13 the following:

14 ‘‘(1) HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY

15 PROJECTS.—Should’’;

16 (C) by striking ‘‘(2) Should’’ and inserting

17 the following:

18 ‘‘(2) PURCHASED AND CONSTRUCTED DWELL19 INGS.—Should’’; and

20 (D) by striking ‘‘(3) Should’’ and inserting

21 the following:

22 ‘‘(3) FAILURE TO ARRANGE RELOCATION.—

23 Should’’;

24 (6) in subsection (e)—
27

25

•S 1003 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘(e) The’’ and inserting the

2 following:

3 ‘‘(e) DISPOSAL OF ACQUIRED DWELLINGS AND IM4 PROVEMENTS.—The’’;

5 (B) by striking ‘‘section 8’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘section 4’’; and

7 (C) by striking ‘‘section 3 or 4’’ and in8 serting ‘‘section 1’’;

9 (7) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘(f) Notwith10 standing’’ and inserting the following:

11 ‘‘(f) PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.—Notwithstand12 ing’’; and

13 (8) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the

14 following:

15 ‘‘(g) BENEFITS HELD IN TRUST.—

16 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than September

17 30, 2008, the Commissioner shall notify the Sec18 retary of the identity of any head of household that,

19 as of that date—

20 ‘‘(A) is certified as eligible to receive bene21 fits under this Act;

22 ‘‘(B) does not reside on land that has been

23 partitioned to the Tribe of which the head of

24 household is a member; and

25 ‘‘(C) has not received a replacement home.
28

26

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(2) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Not later than

2 September 30, 2008, the Commissioner shall trans3 fer to the Secretary any funds not used by the Com4 missioner to make payments under this Act to eligi5 ble heads of households.

6 ‘‘(3) DISPOSITION OF TRANSFERRED FUNDS.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall

8 hold any funds transferred under paragraph (2)

9 in trust for the heads of households described

10 in paragraph (1)(A).

11 ‘‘(B) PAYMENT AMOUNTS.—Of the funds

12 held in trust under subparagraph (A), the Sec13 retary shall make payments to heads of house14 holds described in paragraph (1)(A) in amounts

15 that would have been made to the heads of

16 households under this Act before September 30,

17 2008—

18 ‘‘(i) on receipt of a request of a head

19 of household, to be used for a replacement

20 home; or

21 ‘‘(ii) on the date of death of the head

22 of household, if the head of household does

23 not make a request under clause (i), in ac24 cordance with subparagraph (C).
29

27

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(C) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS ON DEATH

2 OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.—If the Secretary

3 holds funds in trust under this paragraph for a

4 head of household described in paragraph

5 (1)(A) on the death of the head of household,

6 the Secretary shall—

7 ‘‘(i) identify and notify any heir of the

8 head of household; and

9 ‘‘(ii) distribute the funds held by the

10 Secretary for the head of household to any

11 heir—

12 ‘‘(I) immediately, if the heir is at

13 least 18 years old; or

14 ‘‘(II) if the heir is younger than

15 18 years old on the date on which the

16 Secretary identified the heir, on the

17 date on which the heir attains the age

18 of 18.

19 ‘‘(h) NOTIFICATION.—

20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days

21 after the date of enactment of the Navajo-Hopi

22 Land Settlement Amendments of 2005, the Commis23 sioner shall notify each eligible head of household

24 who has not entered into a lease with the Hopi Tribe

25 to reside on land partitioned to the Hopi Tribe, in
30

28

•S 1003 IS

1 accordance with section 700.138 of title 25, Code of

2 Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).

3 ‘‘(2) LIST.—On the date on which a notice pe4 riod referred to in section 700.139 of title 25, Code

5 of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation),

6 expires, the Commissioner shall submit to the Sec7 retary and the United States Attorney for the Dis8 trict of Arizona a list containing the name and ad9 dress of each eligible head of household who—

10 ‘‘(A) continues to reside on land that has

11 not been partitioned to the Tribe of the head of

12 household; and

13 ‘‘(B) has not entered into a lease to reside

14 on that land.

15 ‘‘(3) CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT

16 HOMES.—Before July 1, 2008, but not later than 90

17 days after receiving a notice of the imminent re18 moval of a relocatee from land provided to the Hopi

19 Tribe under this Act from the Secretary or the

20 United States Attorney for the District of Arizona,

21 the Commissioner may begin construction of a re22 placement home on any land acquired under section

23 6.

24 ‘‘(i) APPEALS.—
31

29

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall es2 tablish an expedited hearing procedure for any ap3 peal relating to the denial of eligibility for benefits

4 under this Act (including regulations promulgated

5 pursuant to this Act) that is pending on, or filed

6 after, the date of enactment of Navajo-Hopi Land

7 Settlement Amendments of 2005.

8 ‘‘(2) FINAL DETERMINATIONS.—The hearing

9 procedure established under paragraph (1) shall—

10 ‘‘(A) provide for a hearing before an im11 partial third party, as the Commissioner deter12 mines necessary: and

13 ‘‘(B) ensure that a final determination is

14 made by the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian

15 Relocation for each appeal described in para16 graph (1) by not later than January 1, 2008.

17 ‘‘(3) NOTICE.—

18 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30

19 days after the date of enactment of the Navajo20 Hopi Land Settlement Amendments of 2005,

21 the Commissioner shall provide written notice

22 to any individual that the Commissioner deter23 mines may have the right to a determination of

24 eligibility for benefits under this Act.
32

30

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE.—The

2 notice provided under subparagraph (A) shall—

3 ‘‘(i) specify that a request for a deter4 mination of eligibility for benefits under

5 this Act shall be presented to the Commis6 sion not later than 180 days after the date

7 on which the notice is issued; and

8 ‘‘(ii) be provided—

9 ‘‘(I) by mail (including means

10 other than certified mail) to the last

11 known address of the recipient; and

12 ‘‘(II) in a newspaper of general

13 circulation in the geographic area in

14 which an address referred to in sub15 clause (I) is located.

16 ‘‘(j) PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES.—

17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

18 provision of this Act, to ensure the full and fair eval19 uation of the requests referred to in subsection

20 (i)(3)(A) (including an appeal hearing before an im21 partial third party referred to in subsection

22 (i)(2)(A)), the Commissioner may enter into such

23 contracts or agreements to procure such services,

24 and employ such personnel (including attorneys), as

25 the Commissioner determines to be necessary.
33

31

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(2) DETAIL OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

2 OR HEARING OFFICERS.—The Commissioner may re3 quest the Secretary to act through the Director of

4 the Office of Hearings and Appeals to make avail5 able to the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relo6 cation an administrative law judge or other hearing

7 officer with appropriate qualifications to review the

8 requests referred to in subsection (i)(3)(A), as deter9 mined by the Commissioner.

10 ‘‘(k) APPEAL TO UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF

11 APPEALS.—

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3),

13 any individual who, under the procedures established

14 by the Commissioner pursuant to this section, is de15 termined not to be eligible to receive benefits under

16 this Act may appeal that determination to the

17 United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the

18 Ninth Circuit (referred to in this subsection as the

19 ‘Circuit Court’).

20 ‘‘(2) REVIEW.—

21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Circuit Court

22 shall, with respect to each appeal described in

23 paragraph (1)—

24 ‘‘(i) review the entire record (as cer25 tified to the Circuit Court under paragraph
34

32

•S 1003 IS

1 (3)) on which a determination of the ineli2 gibility of the appellant to receive benefits

3 under this Act was based; and

4 ‘‘(ii) on the basis of that review, af5 firm or reverse that determination.

6 ‘‘(B) STANDARD OF REVIEW.—The Circuit

7 Court shall affirm any determination that the

8 Circuit Court determines to be supported by

9 substantial evidence.

10 ‘‘(3) NOTICE OF APPEAL.—

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30

12 days after a determination of ineligibility under

13 paragraph (1), an affected individual shall file

14 a notice of appeal with—

15 ‘‘(i) the Circuit Court; and

16 ‘‘(ii) the Commissioner.

17 ‘‘(B) CERTIFICATION OF RECORD.—On re18 ceipt of a notice under subparagraph (A)(ii),

19 the Commissioner shall submit to the Circuit

20 Court the certified record on which the deter21 mination that is the subject of the appeal was

22 made.

23 ‘‘(C) REVIEW PERIOD.— Not later than 60

24 days after receiving a certified record under

25 subparagraph (B), the Circuit Court shall con-
35

33

•S 1003 IS

1 duct a review and file a decision regarding an

2 appeal in accordance with paragraph (2).

3 ‘‘(D) BINDING DECISION.—A decision

4 made by the Circuit Court under this sub5 section shall be final and binding on all par6 ties.’’.

7 SEC. 112. PAYMENT FOR USE OF LAND.

8 Section 16 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

9 U.S.C. 640d–15) is amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 16. (a) The Navajo’’ and

11 inserting the following:

12 ‘‘SEC. 12. PAYMENT FOR USE OF LAND.

13 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Navajo’’;

14 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘sections 8

15 and 3 or 4’’ and inserting ‘‘sections 1 and 4’’; and

16 (3) in subsection (b)—

17 (A) by striking ‘‘(b) The’’ and inserting

18 the following:

19 ‘‘(b) PAYMENT.—The’’; and

20 (B) by striking ‘‘sections 8 and 3 or 4’’

21 and inserting ‘‘sections 1 and 4’’.

22 SEC. 113. EFFECT OF ACT.

23 Section 17 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

24 U.S.C. 640d–16) is amended—
36

34

•S 1003 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 17. (a)’’ and inserting the

2 following:

3 ‘‘SEC. 13. EFFECT OF ACT.

4 ‘‘(a) TITLE, POSSESSION, AND ENJOYMENT.—’’;

5 (2) in subsection (a)—

6 (A) in the first sentence, by striking

7 ‘‘Nothing’’ and inserting the following:

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing’’; and

9 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

10 ‘‘Such’’ and inserting the following:

11 ‘‘(2) RESIDENCE ON OTHER RESERVATIONS.—

12 Any’’; and

13 (3) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘(b) Nothing’’

14 and inserting the following:

15 ‘‘(b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—Nothing’’.

16 SEC. 114. ACTIONS FOR ACCOUNTING, FAIR VALUE OF

17 GRAZING, AND CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO

18 LAND.

19 Section 18 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

20 U.S.C. 640d–17) is amended—

21 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 18. (a) Either’’ and in22 serting the following:
37

35

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 14. ACTIONS FOR ACCOUNTING, FAIR VALUE OF

2 GRAZING, AND CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO

3 LAND.

4 ‘‘(a) ACTIONS BY TRIBES.—Either’’;

5 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘section 3 or

6 4’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1’’;

7 (3) in subsection (b)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘(b) Neither’’ and inserting

9 the following:

10 ‘‘(b) DEFENSES.—Neither’’; and

11 (B) by striking ‘‘section 3 or 4’’ and in12 serting ‘‘section 1’’;

13 (4) in subsection (c)—

14 (A) by striking ‘‘(c) Either’’ and inserting

15 the following:

16 ‘‘(c) FURTHER ORIGINAL, ANCILLARY, OR SUPPLE17 MENTARY ACTS TO ENSURE QUIET ENJOYMENT.—

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Either’’; and

19 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

20 ‘‘Such actions’’ and inserting the following:

21 ‘‘(2) ACTION THROUGH CHAIRMAN.—An action

22 under paragraph (1)’’;

23 (5) in subsection (d)—

24 (A) by striking ‘‘(d) Except’’ and inserting

25 the following:
38

36

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(d) UNITED STATES AS PARTY; JUDGMENTS

2 AGAINST THE UNITED STATES—

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except’’; and

4 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

5 ‘‘Any judgment or judgments’’ and inserting

6 the following:

7 ‘‘(2) EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS.—Any judg8 ment’’; and

9 (6) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘(e) All’’ and

10 inserting the following:

11 ‘‘(e) REMEDIES.—All’’.

12 SEC. 115. JOINT USE.

13 Section 19 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

14 U.S.C. 640d–18) is amended—

15 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 19. (a) Notwithstanding’’

16 and inserting the following:

17 ‘‘SEC. 15. JOINT USE.

18 ‘‘(a) REDUCTION OF LIVESTOCK.—

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding’’;

20 (2) in subsection (a)(1) (as designated by para21 graph (1))—

22 (A) by striking ‘‘section 3 or 4’’ and in23 serting ‘‘section 1’’; and
39

37

•S 1003 IS

1 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

2 ‘‘The Secretary is directed to’’ and inserting the

3 following:

4 ‘‘(2) CONSERVATION PRACTICES AND METH5 ODS.—The Secretary shall’’;

6 (3) in subsection (b)—

7 (A) by striking ‘‘(b) The’’ and inserting

8 the following:

9 ‘‘(b) SURVEY LOCATION OF MONUMENTS AND FENC10 ING OF BOUNDARIES.—The’’; and

11 (B) by striking ‘‘sections 8 and 3 or 4’’

12 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘sections 1

13 and 4’’; and

14 (4) in subsection (c)—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘(c)(1) Surveying’’ and in16 serting the following:

17 ‘‘(c) SURVEYING, MONUMENTING, AND FENCING;

18 LIVESTOCK REDUCTION PROGRAM.—

19 ‘‘(1) SURVEYING, MONUMENTING, AND FENC20 ING.—Surveying’’;

21 (B) in paragraph (1)—

22 (i) by striking ‘‘section 4’’ and insert23 ing ‘‘section 1’’; and

24 (ii) by striking ‘‘section 8’’ and insert25 ing ‘‘section 4’’; and
40

38

•S 1003 IS

1 (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2)

2 The’’ and inserting the following:

3 ‘‘(2) LIVESTOCK REDUCTION PROGRAM.—The’’.

4 SEC. 116. RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES; PIPING OF WATER.

5 Section 20 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

6 U.S.C. 640d–19) is amended by striking ‘‘SEC. 20. The

7 members’’ and inserting the following:

8 ‘‘SEC. 16. RELIGIOUS CEREMONIAL USES; PIPING OF

9 WATER.

10 ‘‘The members’’.

11 SEC. 117. ACCESS TO RELIGIOUS SHRINES.

12 Section 21 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

13 U.S.C. 640d–20) is amended by striking ‘‘SEC. 21. Not14 withstanding’’ and inserting the following:

15 ‘‘SEC. 17. ACCESS TO RELIGIOUS SHRINES.

16 ‘‘Notwithstanding’’.

17 SEC. 118. EXCLUSION OF PAYMENTS FROM CERTAIN FED18 ERAL DETERMINATIONS OF INCOME.

19 Section 22 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

20 U.S.C. 640d–21) is amended—

21 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 22. The availability’’ and

22 inserting the following:

23 ‘‘SEC. 18. EXCLUSION OF PAYMENTS FROM CERTAIN FED24 ERAL DETERMINATIONS OF INCOME.

25 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The availability’’; and
41

39

•S 1003 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘None of the funds’’ and insert2 ing the following:

3 ‘‘(b) FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES.—None

4 of the funds’’.

5 SEC. 119. AUTHORIZATION OF EXCHANGE.

6 Section 23 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

7 U.S.C. 649d–22) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 23. The Navajo’’ and in9 serting the following:

10 ‘‘SEC. 19. AUTHORIZATION OF EXCHANGE.

11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Navajo’’; and

12 (2) in the second sentence—

13 (A) by striking ‘‘In the event that the

14 Tribes should’’ and inserting the following:

15 ‘‘(b) NEGOTIATED EXCHANGES.—If the Tribes’’; and

16 (B) by striking ‘‘sections 14 and 15’’ and

17 inserting ‘‘sections 10 and 11’’.

18 SEC. 120. SEVERABILITY.

19 Section 24 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

20 U.S.C. 640d–23) is amended by striking ‘‘SEC. 24. If’’

21 and inserting the following:

22 ‘‘SEC. 20. SEVERABILITY.

23 ‘‘If’’.
42

40

•S 1003 IS

1 SEC. 121. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 Section 25 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

3 U.S.C. 640d–24) is—

4 (1) moved so as to appear at the end of the

5 Act; and

6 (2) amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘SEC. 27. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

8 ‘‘(a) RELOCATION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND MEM9 BERS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry

10 out section 10(b) $13,000,000.

11 ‘‘(b) RELOCATION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND MEM12 BERS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry

13 out section 11 such sums as are necessary for each of fis14 cal years 2006 through 2008.

15 ‘‘(c) RETURN TO CARRYING CAPACITY AND INSTITU16 TION OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES.—There is author17 ized to be appropriated to carry out section 15(a)

18 $10,000,000.

19 ‘‘(d) SURVEY LOCATION OF MONUMENTS AND FENC20 ING OF BOUNDARIES.—There is authorized to be appro21 priated to carry out section 15(b) $500,000.’’.

22 SEC. 122. FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH SCHOOL

23 AND MEDICAL CENTER.

24 Section 27 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

25 U.S.C. 640d–25) is amended by striking ‘‘SEC. 27.’’ and
43

41

•S 1003 IS

1 all that follows through ‘‘(c) The Secretary’’ and inserting

2 the following:

3 ‘‘SEC. 21. FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH SCHOOL

4 AND MEDICAL CENTER.

5 ‘‘The Secretary’’.

6 SEC. 123. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; WILDERNESS STUDY;

7 CANCELLATION OF LEASES AND PERMITS.

8 Section 28 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

9 U.S.C. 640d–26) is amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 28. (a) No action’’ and

11 inserting the following:

12 ‘‘SEC. 22. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; WILDERNESS STUDY;

13 CANCELLATION OF LEASES AND PERMITS.

14 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No action’’;

15 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘(b) Any’’ and

16 inserting the following:

17 ‘‘(b) EFFECT OF WILDERNESS STUDY.—Any’’; and

18 (3) by adding at the end the following:

19 ‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.—

20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any construction activity

21 under this Act shall be carried out in accordance

22 with sections 3 through 7 of the Act of June 27,

23 1960 (16 U.S.C. 469a–1 through 469c).

24 ‘‘(2) COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIRE25 MENTS.—If a construction activity meets the re-
44

42

•S 1003 IS

1 quirements under paragraph (1), the activity shall

2 be considered to be in accordance with any applica3 ble requirement of—

4 ‘‘(A) Public Law 89–665 (80 Stat. 915);

5 and

6 ‘‘(B) the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat.

7 225, chapter 3060).’’.

8 SEC. 124. ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT COSTS.

9 Section 29 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

10 U.S.C. 640d–27) is amended—

11 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 29. (a)’’ and inserting the

12 following:

13 ‘‘SEC. 23. ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT COSTS.

14 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’;

15 (2) in subsection (a)—

16 (A) by striking ‘‘In any’’ and inserting the

17 following:

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In any’’; and

19 (B) by striking ‘‘For each’’ and inserting

20 the following:

21 ‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

22 For each’’;

23 (3) in subsection (b)—

24 (A) by striking ‘‘(b) Upon’’ and inserting

25 the following:
45

43

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(b) AWARD BY COURT.—

2 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—On’’; and

3 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

4 ‘‘Any party’’ and inserting the following:

5 ‘‘(2) REIMBURSEMENT OF UNITED STATES.—

6 Any party’’;

7 (4) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘(c) To’’ and

8 inserting the following:

9 ‘‘(c) EXCESS DIFFERENCE.—To’’; and

10 (5) in subsection (d)—

11 (A) by striking ‘‘(d) This’’ and inserting

12 the following:

13 ‘‘(d) APPLICATION OF SECTION.—This’’; and

14 (B) by striking ‘‘section 8 or 18(a) of this

15 Act’’ and inserting ‘‘section 4 or section 14(a)’’.

16 SEC. 125. LOBBYING.

17 Section 31 of the Act of December 22, 1974 (25

18 U.S.C. 640d–29) is amended—

19 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 31. (a) Except’’ and in20 serting the following:

21 ‘‘SEC. 24. LOBBYING.

22 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except’’; and

23 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘(b) Sub24 section’’ and inserting the following:

25 ‘‘(b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection’’.
46

44

•S 1003 IS

1 SEC. 126. NAVAJO REHABILITATION TRUST FUND.

2 The first section designated as section 32 of the Act

3 of December 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640d–30) is amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 32. (a) There’’ and in5 serting the following:

6 ‘‘SEC. 25. NAVAJO REHABILITATION TRUST FUND.

7 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There’’;

8 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘(b) All’’ and in9 serting the following:

10 ‘‘(b) DEPOSIT OF INCOME INTO FUND.—All’’;

11 (3) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘(c) The’’ and

12 inserting the following:

13 ‘‘(c) INVESTMENT OF FUNDS.—The’’;

14 (4) in subsection (d)—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘(d) Funds’’ and inserting

16 the following:

17 ‘‘(d) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Funds’’;

18 (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘proceed19 ings,’’ and inserting ‘‘proceedings;’’; and

20 (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Act, or’’

21 and inserting ‘‘Act; or’’;

22 (5) in subsection (e)—

23 (A) by striking ‘‘(e) By December 1’’ and

24 inserting the following:

25 ‘‘(e) EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS.—
47

45

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December

2 1’’; and

3 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

4 ‘‘Such framework is to be’’ and inserting the

5 following:

6 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—The framework under

7 paragraph (1) shall be’’;

8 (6) in subsection (f)—

9 (A) by striking ‘‘(f) The’’ and inserting the

10 following:

11 ‘‘(f) TERMINATION.—

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The’’; and

13 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

14 ‘‘All funds’’ and inserting the following:

15 ‘‘(2) TRANSFER OF REMAINING FUNDS.—All

16 funds’’; and

17 (7) in subsection (g)—

18 (A) by striking ‘‘(g) There is hereby’’ and

19 inserting the following:

20 ‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

21 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is’’;

22 (B) in the first sentence, by striking

23 ‘‘1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995’’

24 and inserting ‘‘2006 through 2008’’; and
48

46

•S 1003 IS

1 (C) in the second sentence, by striking

2 ‘‘The income’’ and inserting the following:

3 ‘‘(2) INCOME FROM LAND.—The income’’.

4 SEC. 127. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELOCATION AS5 SISTANCE.

6 The second section designated as section 32 of the

7 Act of December 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640–31) is amended

8 by striking ‘‘SEC. 32. Nothing’’ and inserting the follow9 ing:

10 ‘‘SEC. 26. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELOCATION AS11 SISTANCE.’’.

12 ‘‘Nothing’’.

13 TITLE II—PERSONNEL OF THE

14 OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI

15 INDIAN RELOCATION

16 SEC. 201. RETENTION PREFERENCE.

17 The second sentence of section 3501(b) of title 5,

18 United States Code, is amended—

19 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘Senate’’ and insert20 ing a comma;

21 (2) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘Service’’ and insert22 ing a comma; and

23 (3) by inserting ‘‘, or to an employee of the Of24 fice of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation’’ before

25 the period.
49

47

•S 1003 IS

1 SEC. 202. SEPARATION PAY.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 55 of title 5, United

3 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow4 ing:

5 ‘‘§ 5598 Separation pay for certain employees of the

6 Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Reloca7 tion

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in sub9 sections (b) and (c), the Commissioner of the Office of

10 Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation shall establish a pro11 gram to offer separation pay to employees of the Office

12 of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (referred to in this

13 section as the ‘Office’) in the same manner as the Sec14 retary of Defense offers separation pay to employees of

15 a defense agency under section 5597.

16 ‘‘(b) SEPARATION PAY.—

17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Under the program estab18 lished under subsection (a), the Commissioner of the

19 Office may offer separation pay only to employees

20 within an occupational group or at a pay level that

21 minimizes the disruption of ongoing Office programs

22 at the time that the separation pay is offered.

23 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—Any separation pay of24 fered under this subsection—

25 ‘‘(A) shall be paid in a lump sum;
50

48

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(B) shall be in an amount equal to

2 $25,000, if paid on or before December 31,

3 2007;

4 ‘‘(C) shall be in an amount equal to

5 $20,000, if paid after December 31, 2007, and

6 before January 1, 2009;

7 ‘‘(D) shall be in an amount equal to

8 $15,000, if paid after December 31, 2008, and

9 before January 1, 2010;

10 ‘‘(E) shall not—

11 ‘‘(i) be a basis for payment;

12 ‘‘(ii) be considered to be income for

13 the purposes of computing any other type

14 of benefit provided by the Federal Govern15 ment; and

16 ‘‘(F) if an individual is otherwise entitled

17 to receive any severance pay under section 5595

18 on the basis of any other separation, shall not

19 be payable in addition to the amount of the sev20 erance pay to which that individual is entitled

21 under section 5595.

22 ‘‘(c) PROHIBITION.—No amount shall be payable

23 under this section to any employee of the Office for any

24 separation occurring after December 31, 2009.’’.
51

49

•S 1003 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The chapter analy2 sis for chapter 55 of title 5 is amended by adding at the

3 end the following:

‘‘5598. Separation pay for certain employees of the Office of Navajo and Hopi

Indian Relocation.’’.

4 SEC. 203. FEDERAL RETIREMENT.

5 (a) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—

6 (1) IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT.—Section

7 8336(j)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is

8 amended by inserting ‘‘or was employed by the Of9 fice of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation during

10 the period beginning on January 1, 1985, and end11 ing on the date of separation of that employee’’ be12 fore the final comma.

13 (2) COMPUTATION OF ANNUITY.—Section

14 8339(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended

15 by adding at the end the following:

16 ‘‘(8) The annuity of an employee of the Office of Nav17 ajo and Hopi Indian Relocation described in section

18 8336(j)(1)(B) shall be determined under subsection (a),

19 except that with respect to service of that employee on

20 or after January 1, 1985, the annuity of that employee

21 shall be in an amount equal to the sum of—

22 ‘‘(A) the product obtained by multiplying—

‘‘(i) 21 23 ⁄2 percent of the average pay of the

24 employee; and
52

50

•S 1003 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) the quantity of service of the employee on

2 or after January 1, 1985, that does not exceed 10

3 years; and

4 ‘‘(B) the product obtained by multiplying—

5 ‘‘(i) 2 percent of the average pay of the

6 employee; and

7 ‘‘(ii) the quantity of the service of the em8 ployee on or after January 1, 1985, that ex9 ceeds 10 years.’’.

10 (b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—

11 (1) IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT.—Section 8412 of

12 title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding

13 at the end the following:

14 ‘‘(i) An employee of the Office of Navajo and Hopi

15 Indian Relocation is entitled to an annuity if that

16 employee—

17 ‘‘(1) has been continuously employed in the Of18 fice of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation during

19 the period beginning on January 1, 1985, and end20 ing on the date of separation of that individual; and

21 ‘‘(2)(A) has completed 25 years of service at

22 any age; or

23 ‘‘(B) has attained the age of 50 years and has

24 completed 20 years of service.’’.
53

51

•S 1003 IS

1 (2) COMPUTATION OF BASIC ANNUITY.—Section

2 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is amended—

3 (1) by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection

4 (m);

5 (2) by redesignating the second subsection des6 ignated as subsection (k) as subsection (l); and

7 (3) by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(n) The annuity of an employee retiring under sec9 tion 8412(i) shall be determined in accordance with sub10 section (d), except that with respect to service during the

11 period beginning on January 1, 1985, the annuity of the

12 employee shall be an amount equal to the sum of—

13 ‘‘(1) the product obtained by multiplying—

14 ‘‘(A) 2 percent of the average pay of the

15 employee; and

16 ‘‘(B) the quantity of the total service of

17 the employee that does not exceed 10 years;

18 and

19 ‘‘(2) the product obtained by multiplying—

‘‘(A) 11 20 ⁄2 percent of the average pay of the

21 employee; and

22 ‘‘(B) the quantity of the total service of

23 the employee that exceeds 10 years.’’.
54

52

•S 1003 IS

1 TITLE III—TRANSFER OF FUNC2 TIONS AND SAVINGS PROVI3 SIONS

4 SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

5 In this title:

6 (1) FEDERAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘Federal

7 agency’’ has the meaning given the term ‘‘agency’’

8 in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.

9 (2) FUNCTION.—The term ‘‘function’’ means

10 any duty, obligation, power, authority, responsibility,

11 right, privilege, activity, or program.

12 (3) OFFICE.—The term ‘‘Office’’ means the Of13 fice of Navajo and Hopi Relocation (including any

14 component of that office).

15 SEC. 302. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

16 Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, there

17 is transferred to the Secretary of the Interior any function

18 of the Office that has not been carried out by the Office

19 on the date of enactment of this Act, as determined by

20 the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Act

21 of December 22, 1974 (25 U.S.C. 640 et seq.) (as amend22 ed by title I).
55

53

•S 1003 IS

1 SEC. 303. TRANSFER AND ALLOCATIONS OF APPROPRIA2 TIONS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in

4 this Act and the amendments made by this Act, any asset,

5 liability, contract, property, record, or unexpended balance

6 of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other

7 funds made available to carry out the functions trans8 ferred by this title shall be transferred to the Secretary

9 of the Interior, subject to section 1531 of title 31, United

10 States Code.

11 (b) USE OF FUNDS.—Any unexpended funds trans12 ferred under subsection (a) shall be used only for the pur13 poses for which the funds were originally authorized and

14 appropriated.

15 SEC. 304. EFFECT OF TITLE.

16 (a) CONTINUING EFFECT OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS.—

17 Any legal document relating to a function transferred by

18 this title that is in effect on the date of enactment of this

19 Act shall continue in effect in accordance with the terms

20 of the document until the document is modified or termi21 nated by—

22 (1) the President;

23 (2) the Secretary of the Interior;

24 (3) a court of competent jurisdiction; or

25 (4) operation of Federal or State law.
56

54

•S 1003 IS

1 (b) PROCEEDINGS NOT AFFECTED.—This title shall

2 not affect any proceeding (including a notice of proposed

3 rulemaking, an administrative proceeding, and an applica4 tion for a license, permit, certificate, or financial assist5 ance) relating to a function transferred under this title

6 that is pending before the Office of Navajo and Hopi Relo7 cation on the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
57

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Inouye.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

HAWAII, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

As you have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, this problem has been

with us for over 125 years. It is one based on culture and history

and much blood has been shed. But as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the time has come. Yes, the time has come.

When we first handled this, it was $40 million. Now, it is nearly

one-half billion dollars and it could get higher.

But the spirit of cooperation is here, and I am certain that the

leaders of both the Hopi and Navajo have learned that by cooperating one can achieve a lot. I hope that spirit will prevail. Some day

soon, Mr. Chairman, I hope you and I can go there to celebrate this

great event.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye. I want to

thank you for your continued involvement and commitment on this

issue for many, many years.

I again want to commend Chris Bavasi, the executive director of

the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, and William

Ragsdale, but particularly you, Chris, for the outstanding job that

you have performed over many years and exceedingly difficult ones.

Our first panel today is Christopher J. Bavasi, executive director

of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.

He is accompanied by Paul Tessler. Mr. Tessler, would you like

to come to the table? Paul Tessler is legal counsel of the Office of

Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation in Flagstaff, AZ. And William

P. Ragsdale, who is the director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,

U.S. Department of the Interior.

I think it would be appropriate to begin with you, Mr. Ragsdale.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. RAGSDALE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU

OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. RAGSDALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to appear here before the committee. I appreciate the committee’s concern. I want to pledge that we will work with this committee, the

Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission, the Navajo and Hopi Tribes,

to transition the activities required by the act and the proposed

amendments.

Mr. Chairman, if it is all right with you, I would like to just summarize my views and then answer any questions the committee

may have. I would request that my written testimony be included

in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, all the written testimony will

be made part of the record by all witnesses.

Mr. RAGSDALE. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

Senator Inouye, for being here. I have appeared before this committee before in my younger years, both as a tribal official and as a

BIA official. It is good to see you again.

Yesterday, I met with the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Commission. I

think we had a very productive meeting. We talked about

transitioning the activities of the Commission, particularly the land
58

management responsibility that the Bureau of Indian Affairs traditionally has on Indian lands throughout the country. I think that

we will be working closely together to make that transition by the

time, if not before, the term of the Relocation Commission expires.

We have concerns addressed in my formal testimony about any

remaining duties that would be required to relocate individual Indians and families, and the determinations of their eligibility, if

that is not completed by the term of the Commission. However, the

Commission has told me that they expect those activities to be

closed and completed before their term expires.

In addition to that, we would like to work with the committee

and the Commission to carry out the transition plans. The only

other concern that we would have is the personnel provisions that

I think if we can work out with the committee that have been

brought to our attention.

With that, I will end my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I will be

glad to answer your questions. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ragsdale appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. As part of your opening statement, do you believe that this legislation is now necessary?

Mr. RAGSDALE. If it is necessary to complete the work of the

Commission in finality, yes sir, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bavasi, again I want to thank you for the outstanding work

you and the Commission have performed over a many year period.

Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. BAVASI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL TESSLER, LEGAL COUNSEL,

THE OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

Mr. BAVASI. Thank you, Senator.

I do have a written statement that I will submit for the record.

I just want to give you the first couple of paragraphs here. Actually, in early June of this year, I and my staff met with the members of the committee’s staff in Flagstaff, AZ for the purpose of giving comments on the original draft of S. 1003. The Office is in

agreement with the legislation’s projected date for completion of relocation and transfer of any remaining functions to a newly created

Office of Relocation within the Department of the Interior.

I just want to make it clear that we believe that we can finish

the relocation project and be prepared to turn over the land management program to BIA in the time frame that you have submitted in your pending legislation.

With that, I will submit the rest for the record.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bavasi appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe for the record it might be helpful, Mr.

Bavasi, to describe to the committee for the record, if I went to the

Phoenix Rotary Club today and said, you know, we passed a law

in 1974 that was supposed to cost $40 million and take maybe 10

to 12 years, and it has ended up costing one-half of a billion dollars

and has gone on for 31 years. How would you describe this saga?

First of all, there is a lesson that Congress probably should not

pass laws dictating relocation. Is that the first lesson?
59

Mr. BAVASI. Probably, but I would do it carefully. I would not

want to blame this on anyone. I would merely point out that, well,

let me back up. I think the record would show that when this was

originally contemplated that the notion was that there would be

maybe 1,000 or 1,100 families that needed to be moved. The deadline of 1985 then 1986 came about because the law required the Office to submit a plan, have plan approved, and then 5 years later

the project was supposed to be done. That was 1985. And then because of some legal issues, it became 1986.

So July 7, 1986, this project was supposed to be done and originally it had been contemplated there would be 1,100 families, 1,000

or 1,100 families to be moved. Interestingly enough, in 1986 1,100

families had been moved. However, because for a whole variety of

reasons, ultimately 3,600 families had been certified, or ultimately

had been certified. So that is certainly one reason that it has taken

this long.

Another reason I think is that this has been purported to be

something less than a voluntary program. But in fact, it has always been operated as a voluntary program. So some folks did not

see the urgency to move through the program perhaps as quickly

as they would otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN. So no one has ever been forced off of their land?

Mr. BAVASI. No, sir; it has never happened. I will visit with you

later, if I am able to, about how we think we can come to a conclusion so no one will ever be forced off their land.

So I think those two issues would be one reason we are where

we are today.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you account for gross miscalculation

of costs from a $40 million original cost to a one-half-billion dollars

actual cost?

Mr. BAVASI. I am not sure I can because I do not know what the

theory was or the thought process was 30 years ago that it would

cost $40 million. We believe, and I think we can show that we have

been fairly frugal in terms of the expenditure of money, we are able

to even today, in today’s housing market, we are able to build a

home for slightly over $100,000 in 2004. It will be slightly higher

this coming year.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Tessler might testify that there has

been huge, huge amount of legal costs associated with this issue.

Is that right, Mr. Tessler?

Mr. TESSLER. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you estimate out of this one-half billion

dollars how much has just been expended in continuous court battles? I think there have been continuous court battles from the day

that this bill was passed.

Mr. TESSLER. Yes; there have. I know we provided the figure to

your staff. I do not have it in front of me, but all through this process, the relocatees, if they have been denied eligibility for benefits,

have been entitled to administrative hearings, and the Navajo Nation has provided a legal services program to represent them all

through that process, which involved not only the administrative

stage, but also appeals to the U.S. District Court, which generated

much expense.
60

The CHAIRMAN. In all due respect to our friends in the legal profession, this has been quite a windfall for them.

Mr. TESSLER. Yes; it has.

Mr. BAVASI. We can get you that number for the record, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you please for the record give us an estimate of the legal costs associated with this? I think it has really

been horrendous. Again, maybe with the benefit of 31-year hindsight, maybe we should have never passed the law to start with.

Mr. Bavasi, using your expertise, what do you think we ought to

do about the Bennett Freeze situation, which we all know has

turned into, with all good intentions, into a deplorable economic

disaster area.

Mr. BAVASI. Senator, I do not think there is any easy answer to

it. As you suggest, it is a deplorable, awful situation.

I think if we all work together, the Navajos, the Hopis and Congress, the Federal Government, we can come to some conclusion on

how that area can be rehabilitated.

The CHAIRMAN. Which I think Congress, by the way, would be

more than willing to provide funds for, but first we have to have

a resolution. What if we passed a law tomorrow that said Bennett

Freeze is lifted? What would happen then?

Mr. BAVASI. Number one, I do not think that would be wise. I

think that we should all work together to come to some meeting

of the minds.

The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn’t be wise because what would happen?

Mr. BAVASI. Chaos might be an appropriate term. I do not have

any idea what would happen, but I do not think it would be good

because everyone would be scrambling to get the upper hand, and

I do not think that is the proper way to handle it.

The CHAIRMAN. But negotiations between the tribes for 31 years

have not succeeded.

Mr. BAVASI. I am not sure we have tried that hard. I am not sure

we have tried that hard on the Bennett Freeze issue. I could be

completely wrong. I am not involved in that, but I suspect that we

can come to some conclusions, frankly, using the relocation as a

benchmark of perhaps what not to do going in.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. As I have indicated earlier, I am very optimistic

because I recall the first meeting that this committee held during

which time the chairman of the Hopi and the chairman of the Navajo sat at the same table, and that had never happened before.

Today, I note that for over 3 years, I believe, negotiators and the

leaders of both tribes have been looking into the access to sacred

sites in each other’s camps. Now, if we can go that far, I am certain

all of these matters can be resolved.

I share the chairman’s optimism and his directness that this be

resolved. I am with him.

Mr. BAVASI. Senator, may I add that I hope I did not leave the

wrong impression. There is no relocation on the Bennett Freeze.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but the Bennett Freeze continues to be a

source of major friction between tribes, and the deplorable economic conditions that exist are just, you know, it is an outrage that

any citizen of the United States should live in the conditions that
61

exist on the Bennett Freeze. That was created by the Federal Government. Is that an inaccurate statement?

Mr. BAVASI. No; it is not.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ragsdale, do you have any comment on that?

Mr. RAGSDALE. No, sir. I think it would have to be addressed in

separate legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tessler.

Mr. TESSLER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You guys are surprisingly reticent.

Mr. BAVASI. We are not a party to that suit, nor have we been.

The CHAIRMAN. No; but you are very familiar with the impact

that the Bennett Freeze has had on this whole issue.

Mr. BAVASI. That part of the reservation has fallen behind even

the former joint use area that we are dealing with now in terms

of development and lack of infrastructure. I do believe it is very

close to resolution. I believe the tribes are considering the compacts

which may resolve it anytime now.

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Mr. RAGSDALE. Mr. Chairman, the freeze was put in place in

1964 and 1965, about the time I graduated from high school.

When I learned the other day when I was being briefed on the

matter that the freeze was essentially still the status quo, I was

somewhat surprised.

The CHAIRMAN. As I remember history, it was put in as a temporary measure that would be an incentive to not have one tribe

take advantage over the other while the dispute was going to be

resolved within a short period of time, and here we are 50 years

later, whatever 40-some years later.

Again, I go back, Senator Inouye. I think that Congress ought to

be more careful about, and Administrations ought to be more careful, as we all know, it was an Executive order, the Bennett Freeze,

as to how we interfere in these disputes because sometimes the

laws of unintended consequences prevail in an incredible fashion.

One other issue I had for you, Mr. Bavasi, construction and

maintenance problems with relocation housing. How severe are

they?

Mr. BAVASI. Construction and maintenance problems?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BAVASI. Construction problems are minimal. We have either

purchased or constructed over 3,400 houses. We have a program on

the new lands, that is an area in Sanders, about 350,000 acres,

there are almost 400 homes there, 397 homes.

We have a very small portion that originally were started by BIA

a number of years ago. One of the previous, it was not called ‘‘director’’ then.

Mr. RAGSDALE. Assistant Secretary.

Mr. BAVASI. Assistant Secretary then had about $25 million to

build houses, and decided that BIA wanted to do it themselves.

There were some earth problems. The houses that were begun to

be built there, 12 or 13, and then the program came back to us.

We finished the houses. To make a long story short, there are 36

houses there. About 12 of them have had some foundation problems. We are now going in and evaluating all of that, and we will

fix whatever needs to be fixed.
62

The point I am making is that besides those, there are very few

houses, not none, but very few houses over the course of these

years that have needed to be fixed because of latent defects in the

construction.

Maintenance is an entirely different story. We expect our clients

to take care of the houses, as anybody else would. So we frequently

get complaints about shingles off the roof, broken windows, those

kinds of things.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ragsdale, finally, the reason why the Office

of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation was created originally was

because of the belief that the Bureau of Indian Affairs could not

handle it. Now, we are going to I guess turn over a few loose ends

to you, hopefully a minimum. But I hope that you will give this

issue the attention it deserves as we complete this, in my view, unhappy chapter in many ways in American governmental relations

with Native Americans.

So I hope that I can get a commitment from you that you will

place this as a very high priority whatever responsibilities may remain, including actively involved in how we can get the Bennett

Freeze lifted and be equitable to all parties.

Mr. RAGSDALE. I will place that, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Again, Mr. Bavasi, I know you have been involved in this issue

for a very long time. I have heard nothing but praise from Navajo

and Hopi alike. You have been involved in some very incredibly

traumatic issues for some families who have had to move off of

land that they occupied for centuries thank you for the job that you

and the Commission have done.

Mr. BAVASI. Thank you, Senator. That is very kind of you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks very much.

Mr. RAGSDALE. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; go ahead.

Mr. RAGSDALE. I might say, just to express one reservation that

is included in my formal testimony, that our optimism, and I am

optimistic that we will be able to effect an orderly transition and

can work with the Commission, but we do have reservations if the

activities are not concluded with respect to the relocation of individuals. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is very reluctant, the Department of the Interior is very reluctant to be engaged in the movement and responsible for the relocation of individuals from these

lands, which was one of the purposes of this act initially to put

somebody neutral in charge of that activity.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. Again, it has been 31 years.

People have grown old.

I thank you.

Our next panel is Wayne Taylor, who is the tribal chairman of

the Hopi Tribe; Joe Shirley, who is the president of the Navajo Nation. He is accompanied by Louis Denetsosie, who is the attorney

general of the Navajo Nation. Our other witness is Roman Bitsuie,

who is executive director of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission Office in Window Rock, AZ.

I do not know who is older, between Chairman Taylor and President Shirley, but President Shirley looks older, so we will begin

with you. [Laughter.]
63

Welcome to the witnesses.

STATEMENT OF JOE SHIRLEY, JR., PRESIDENT, THE NAVAJO

NATION

Mr. SHIRLEY. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and

Senator McCain, and the rest of the members of the committee.

I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Navajo-Hopi Land

Settlement Amendments with the committee this morning.

My name is Joe Shirley, Jr. I am president of the Navajo Nation.

The Navajo Nation last appeared before this committee regarding

the Navajo-Hopi land dispute in 1996. Since then, five Congresses

and two Administrations have had little interest in the NavajoHopi land dispute. The Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe during

that same period have made significant progress by working in a

more collaborative approach with each other to resolve aspects of

the land dispute. These joints efforts between the Navajos and the

Hopis appears to be moving both tribes to the conclusion of the

land dispute.

Following passage of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement

Act of 1996 and this committee’s consideration in the 104th Congress of S. 2111, that bill with a similar intent to this bill, there

has been no action by this committee regarding the land dispute.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the current status of these

matters with the committee.

The Navajo Nation understands from the introductory comments

of Chairman McCain that he is concerned that the relocation process has cost far more than originally estimated and taken too long

to complete. The Navajo Nation vigorously opposed the NavajoHopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 before its passage and actively

sought its repeal for years afterwards. The Navajo Nation unfortunately failed in these efforts. Had the Navajo Nation been successful, the Navajo people would have been spared a tremendous harm

and the Federal Government would have been spared a great expense.

That said, now that the Navajo people have had to live through

the nightmare of relocation, we do not think Federal budgetary

issues alone should be a basis for limiting funds to complete the

program, and doing so in a way that brings humanity to what has

otherwise been an inhumane process.

The chairman is concerned with costs. I ask the committee to

consider how they would estimate the costs of moving an entire

town and how they would value the economic and social upheaval

such a move would impose. This is what happened to the 12,000

Navajos who lost their land, their livelihood and their identity;

12,000 people, which is approximately the population of Kingman,

AZ. How much would it cost to relocate the entire population of

Kingman to the Phoenix area? One billion dollars? Two billion dollars? How long would it take if the funds were appropriated bit by

bit over 30 years? What would be the impact if the land that these

people were expected to relocate to was already populated? What

would happen if these people suddenly had to unlearn their skills

as farmers and learn to survive in a cash economy? How long

would be too long? How much would be too much?
64

The CHAIRMAN. Let me answer to that: One-half billion would be

too much and 31 years would be too long. That is my response to

you, Mr. President, and I think most of my citizens, including your

constituents, would agree with that.

Mr. SHIRLEY. Since 1996, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe

have settled three major pieces of litigation: The Use Case that

arose from 25 U.S.C. 640(d)-17(a)(2); the Damage Case that arose

from 25 U.S.C. 640(d)-17(a)(3); and the Tax Case that arose from

25 U.S.C. 640(d)(7), and the continued joint ownership of minerals

between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe.

The Use and Damage Cases concluded in 1999 when the Navajo

Nation paid the Hopi Tribe $29.1 million, and the Hopi provided

the Nation with satisfactions of judgment in both the Use and

Damage Cases. Nothing remains of these lawsuits.

Similarly in 2002, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe settled

the Tax Case with a significant payment equal to one-half of the

taxes from the Black Mesa Mine through 2007 were paid by the

Nation to the Hopi Tribe.

Currently, with some assistance from the Office of Navajo and

Hopi Indian Relocation, ONHIR, the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo

Nation are near resolving the final aspects of relocation without

any Navajo evictions from the Hopi partitioned land.

One of the more significant issues presented by S. 1003 in relation to this potential for forced evictions is one of timing. Currently, S. 1003 requires ONHIR to certify eligibility of all outstanding claims by September 30, 2005.

I understand that this date will be revised to September 30,

2008. Such a change should avoid the need for any forced relocation of Navajos because the contemplated agreement can be implemented.

Ideally, if more time is needed to complete these efforts, with the

specter of eviction, that time should be afforded.

This is especially true for interested parties who are working together to complete difficult tasks.

S. 1003 raises other areas of specific concern including, first, rehabilitation efforts should be focused on the Navajo partitioned

land. The NPL Navajo communities have borne much of the cost

of the relocation, having absorbed thousands of relocatees and their

livestock in an area that has long been at or over capacity. The

NPL’s extremely limited infrastructure, already overtaxed by the

influx of relocatees, was further constrained by the construction

freeze that was in place from 1963 until approximately 1979. This

infrastructure continues to be grossly insufficient to meet the current needs resulting from the relocation law.

Second, the relocation law currently authorizes the Commissioner to make grants which significantly assist the Commissioner

or assist the Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe in meeting the burdens

of the law. S. 1003 would strike this provision, but this is the very

provision that provides ONHIR the flexibility to address the needs

of families and communities as they arise. Pursuant to this provision, the Navajo Nation has proposed various projects such as a

community center for the Navajo families that have signed accommodation agreements with the Hopi Tribe, range and road im-
65

provement, power line extensions, and some housing improvements

for heavily impacted NPL host families.

Third, the Navajo land selections in New Mexico should not be

prejudiced. Section 107(c) of S. 2003 provides that the authority of

the Commissioner to select lands in New Mexico shall terminated

on September 30, 2008. Since the Commissioner’s authority would

terminate on that date, it is not clear that this authority would

continue in the new Office of Relocation at the Department of the

Interior.

The Navajo Nation has not yet completed its new Mexico land selections due largely to circumstances beyond its control.

Completion of some of those selections is the subject of legislation

introduced in this Congress, specifically S. 692, the Bisti/PRLA Dispute Resolution Act. The Navajo Nation is concerned that this provision in S. 1003 could impact that selection process and potentially prejudice Navajo interests.

This authority should be carried over into the Department of the

Interior if the selections are not completed by September 30, 2008.

Fourth, the transfer of ONHIR’s responsibilities to the Department of the Interior. ONHIR has developed critical and hard-won

experience in working on and near the Navajo Nation and is ideally

suited to addressing the rehabilitation of the Bennett and Statutory Freeze areas. Based on this institutional knowledge, ONHIR

should not be eliminated, although it certainly can be downsized.

I strongly believe that all Navajos want to put the land dispute

with the Hopis behind and move forward. In order for the Nation

to do that, the final tasks that will complete relocation in a just

and human fashion must be accomplished.

One alternative approach that the committee may want to consider, rather than S. 1003 as presently crafted, would be to evaluate and enumerate all the tasks the ONHIR needs to perform to

finish its tasks, with input from the Navajo Nation and the Hopi

Tribe, then set out a reasonable timeframe to accomplish those

tasks. That timeframe could be used as a period that begins after

passage of the legislation to complete the tasks identified.

Such an approach may not have worked prior to 1996, but in the

present collaborative era, the Nation, ONHIR and the Hopi Tribe

can devise a plan to take these final steps. The Navajo Nation

wants this dispute behind us, but we do not want to leave individuals behind.

In addition to my comments, the Navajo Nation attorney general

has prepared comments on certain specific legal issues presented

by S. 1003. Those matters are also of special concern because of

their impact on cases currently pending in the courts of the impact

these provisions may have on individuals seeking relocation benefits. Roman Bitsuie, the executive director of the Navajo-Hopi Land

Commission Office, will discuss the efforts of the Office to serve the

relocatees in the Bennett Freeze area.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Shirley appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Before we go with you, Chairman Taylor, we will go with Mr.

Bitsuie since it follows. Go ahead. Mr. Attorney General, please
66

proceed. I mean, Mr. Bitsuie, the executive director, please go

ahead.

STATEMENT OF ROMAN BITSUIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE

NAVAJO-HOPI LAND COMMISSION OFFICE

Mr. BITSUIE. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Dorgan, and

members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for

this opportunity to comment on the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement

Amendments of 2005.

The introduction of S. 1003 provides an important and timely opportunity to address the status of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute

and the Bennett Freeze. It also provides an important opportunity

to focus attention on the need for developing a plan for the orderly

and humane completion of the relocation law, including implementation of a rehabilitation program for affected areas and communities.

I am from the Hardrock Chapter of the Navajo Nation which was

divided in half between the Hopi partitioned land and the Navajo

partitioned lands. I can testify first-hand to the many hardships resulting from the relocation law. In 1989, I became the executive director of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission Office, the Navajo entity responsible for dealing with all Navajo and Hopi land-related

matters.

Every day, Navajo tribal members come into my office to tell me

of the hardships that they have suffered because of the relocation

law, including lots of young people whose families relocated and

now are homeless and landless. The impact of the land dispute will

be with the Navajo Nation for many generations to come. Although

we may not agree with everything that will be discussed today, I

am sure that we can agree that relocation has been a fiasco. At a

cost of nearly $500 million, the Federal Government has destroyed

the subsistence lifestyle of thousands of Navajos, uprooted whole

communities, and left the Navajo Nation and the Navajo people to

bear much of the burden of addressing the extraordinary economic,

social and psychological consequences of relocation.

If the Navajo Nation could have its dream bill, it would overturn

the relocation law and provide for a right of return for affected

Navajo families. Of course, we know that this is not going to happen. Still, our spiritual ties to the land run deep and it would be

a betrayal of our beliefs if I did not again remind the committee

of the nature of the sacrifice the Navajo families who have left

their ancestral lands had to make.

From the beginning, Federal policy in this area has been plagued

by lack of understanding of the true situation of the land. When

the 1882 Executive Order Reservation was established, it was an

arbitrarily drawn rectangle, one degree of longitude wide, one degree of latitude high, containing both Navajo and Hopi populations.

In the early 1970’s when the relocation law was under consideration, the Federal Government grossly underestimated the costs of

relocation, again because they did not take the time to understand

properly the situation on the land.

Now, with the relocation process approaching its end, it is critically important to not repeat past mistakes and take action without proper understanding of the situation. We urge that a study be
67

undertaken to assess the impact of the relocation law and to serve

as a policy and fact-based tool for developing a humane closure

plan. The Navajo Nation began pushing for a study in the mid1990’s. In the 107th Congress, this committee actually considered

two pieces of legislation that would have provided for such a study.

Unfortunately, the Hopis opposed the study provision and it was

dropped. If either of these initiatives had been acted upon, we

would be sitting here today with quantifiable data about what has

transpired and what is needed to close out the relocation in a humane manner.

Well, we do not have the empirical data, but we do have loads

of anecdotal information that tells us that many relocated families

have been traumatized and suffer from a much higher incidence of

alcoholism, poverty, suicide, depression and physical illness than

the rest of the local population.

In addition, the burden of caring for these families has fallen on

the surrounding communities, as well as the Navajo Nation. In my

written testimony, I describe at length the hardships imposed by

the relocation law and the related construction freeze.

Further funding of the Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund should

be undertaken to complete its mission of addressing impacts from

the relocation law. The Nation has viewed the trust fund as a resource for addressing unforeseen and unintended consequences of

the land dispute, not only over the short term, but also over the

long term. When initially created through the 1980 amendments to

the act, it was presumed that the authorized amount of $60 million

would provide a significant start when invested to address the impact of the relocation law. It would then be supplemented on an ongoing basis by the development of Paragon Ranch energy resources.

However, the Navajo Nation received only $16 million through the

trust fund. The fund itself has generated about $8 million in interest. Thus, the total value of the fund to the Navajo Nation has

been about $24 million.

The Navajo Nation has expended approximately $13 million

since 1999, and it currently has obligated for near-term expenditure another $2 million, leaving about $9 million in the trust fund,

roughly the amount of interest earned on the account. Of the $9

million, about $8.3 million has been committed for the purchase of

land in Arizona, some 13,000 acres remaining to complete the land

selection provision in section 640(d)(10)(a)(2) of the current law.

As you know, when the 1882 land was partitioned, the Navajo

Nation lost 911,000 acres of land upon which Navajo families resided, and only received as compensation 250,000 acres, plus the

right to purchase up to 150,000 acres. Land is extremely important

in Navajo culture. The commitment to purchase additional land

with trust fund moneys falls within the statutory requirement of

the law which is that the moneys are solely for purposes which will

contribute to continuing rehabilitation and improvement of the economic, educational and social condition of families in Navajo communities affected by the law’s provision.

The Navajo Nation has considered and is currently considering

several properties. However, because it is critically important that

any newly acquired lands truly benefit the affected Navajo families,

the Navajo Nation is exercising due caution. Until the land pur-
68

chases are made, the Navajo Nation is using the interest from the

trust fund to pay for ongoing projects to mitigate the effects of the

relocation.

We were encouraged that S. 1003 would authorize additional appropriations for the trust fund. We now understand that this was

a mistake. We would ask that the trust fund in fact be reauthorized and that it receive full funding, and that the obligation of the

Navajo Nation to repay the Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund be

lifted. The coal resources at the Paragon Ranch were to be the

source of funds to repay the United States. However, Paragon

Ranch has not been developed as expected, and no significant development is anticipated in the foreseeable future.

Notably because of the lawsuit authorized by the relocation law

which created unexpected liabilities of the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Nation has already paid the Hopi Tribe approximately $40 million to settle several cases. The Navajo Nation is not in a position

to pay back the trust fund. The greatest cost of the relocation program has been housing, the majority of which has been completed.

The costs that remain relate to items that support the relocation

process or assist the Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe in meeting the

burden imposed by the relocation law and are therefore very important.

Unfortunately, only a small fraction of the budget of the Office

of Navajo Indian Relocations has been spent on this important

component of the relocation process. We believe that the United

States must finish the job with regard to Navajo-Hopi land dispute

and assure that all those who have been adversely affected by the

relocation law have a chance at a decent life.

As a matter of comparison, I would like to note that the entire

cost of the Federal Government over the last 36 years of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute is roughly equal to what the United States

spends in Iraq every 36 hours.

Another high priority of the Navajo Nation is rehabilitating the

Bennett Freeze area. I do support the statement that has been

made by the chairman and Senator Inouye regarding that.

Due to a 39-year Federal construction freeze, the Bennett Freeze

Navajos are the poorest of the poor. We hope that all parts of the

Freeze will be lifted in the near future and truly rehabilitation of

this area can begin. I am happy to learn from your staff of your

support for addressing this issue. The sooner we can develop a specific approach, the better. It would make sense to make the Office

of Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation to carry out the Bennett Freeze

rehabilitation as they have hard-won expertise at working in the

western Navajo area.

Of course, there should be no forced relocation of Navajo families.

About eight Navajo families who continue to live on HPL have refused to sign the accommodation agreement. There is real hope

that arrangement among the parties can be made to allow these

families to remain on their ancestral land. We believe S. 1003

should support this approach, rather than reinforce the deeply

troubling idea that Navajo families will be forcefully removed from

land that they have called home for generations.

We urge the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to schedule a

hearing on the Navajo Nation in order to facilitate participation by
69

the people most affected by the land dispute and to provide the opportunity to visit affected areas and families in order to deepen the

committee’s understanding of the long-lasting effects of this relocation law.

Thank you for your consideration of these remarks. I look forward to working with the Committee as it considers S. 1003.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bitsuie appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Chairman Taylor, welcome.

Mr. Attorney General, did you have an opening statement?

Mr. DENETSOSIE. Yes; I do.

The CHAIRMAN. It better be a short one.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS DENETSOSIE, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

THE NAVAJO NATION

Mr. DENETSOSIE. Thank you, Senator McCain and members of

the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

I would just like to summarize my testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your full statement will be

made part of the record.

Mr. DENETSOSIE. I will submit the written testimony for the

record.

I would just like to address four aspects of the legislation. I think

that on the existing land claims litigation between the two tribes,

we would agree with the committee, and also I have had a chance

to review Chairman Taylor’s testimony that the legislation should

not amend the laws with respect to that ongoing litigation, specifically the so-called Owelty case. That case is near completion and

we just need to complete that. Judgments have been entered twice

by the Court of Appeals and litigation should just continue. We ask

that section 2 of the bill be deleted.

With regard to 640(d)(11)(f) and (g), the legislation creates two

offices. I think that causes a lot of confusion for everyone concerned. The Department of the Interior office should follow sequentially after the Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Office is taken out

of commission. With regard to 640(d)(13)(d) and 640(d)(14)(i), we do

have a problem with the September 30, 2005 date for close of certification. We understand that that will be extended to 2008. We

would agree with that.

And finally, the legislation creates a new appeals process to take

the appeals of benefit certifications to the Court of Appeals. We believe that is unnecessarily cumbersome and probably not the best

use of judicial resources. We believe that the current procedures

should be kept in place to allow for appeal to the Federal District

Court.

With that, Senator, I agree with you. A lot of good men have

tried to resolve this dispute. I think the dispute has proven to be

bigger than any of them.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Denetsosie appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General.

I would like to say that we would like to be in close communication with you as we move forward with developing this legislation,
70

particularly in the form of amendments. I thank you for those recommendations. They sound like they are very important and helpful ones. And thank you for being here today.

Mr. DENETSOSIE. Yes; and we look forward to working with the

staff on that during the break.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Chairman Taylor, welcome.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE TAYLOR, JR., TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, THE

HOPI TRIBE

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Chairman McCain.

The Hopi Tribe appreciates the opportunity to appear before you

today to offer testimony on S. 1003. My name is Wayne Taylor, Jr.

I am the democratically elected chairman of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona. The tribe has submitted written testimony in reply to specific

provisions of S. 1003.

The Hopi Tribe is grateful for the committee’s effort in attempting to bring to a close the long struggle by the Hopi people to both

protect our aboriginal lands from encroachment and secure jurisdictional control over those lands. The Hopi people have lived on

our northeastern Arizona homeland since ancient times. Our original reservation of more than 2.6 million acres established in 1882

by Executive order of then-President Chester Arthur was only a

small portion of our aboriginal homeland. Since that time, because

of encroachment by the Navajo and action and inaction by the

United States, we have lost over 40 percent of our reservation. We

are today completely surrounded by the Navajo Nation, which overlaps three States. Many of our sacred and archaeological sites are

no longer on the Hopi lands.

The Navajo-Hopi Indian Settlement Act of 1974 was intended to

resolve more than a century of land disputes between the Hopi and

Navajo Nations. It partitioned disputed lands and required Hopi

and Navajo to relocate off property that belonged to one tribe or

the other. Hopi people years ago moved off disputed Navajo land.

However, more than 30 years after passage of the 1974 Act, we are

still waiting for the Navajo to move off Hopi land.

S. 1003 should not rewrite existing dispute resolution provisions

between the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation.

Section 102 of S. 1003 could undo years of litigation between the

Hopi and Navajo in the courts of the United States. The bill affects

the Owelty lawsuit provision of the 1974 Act by changing the

Owelty decisionmaker from the Federal District Court to the Secretary of the Interior.

The bill also changes how Owelty is calculated. The Owelty case

was decided at the District Court level by two judgments, both of

which were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The

case is now on remand to the District Court for further proceedings. The Hopi Tribe opposes any changes to the Owelty provision

of the 1974 Settlement Act.

S. 1003 is intended to complete the work of relocating Navajo off

Hopi lands and close off the Navajo-Hopi Indian relocation by 2008.

We certainly welcome those goals, which under the 1996 Settlement Act were supposed to be completed in 2000.
71

However, we are concerned that the deadline will prejudice the

rights and interests of the Hopi Tribe.

S. 1003 will be effective only so long as it enables the Hopi Tribe

to retain complete jurisdiction over all its reservation lands are

provided in 1974 Act. S. 1003 states that relocation duties remaining after 2008 be turned over to the Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Hopi Tribe believes all relocation be

completed before the Office is closed. We do not believe the BIA,

which is already overburdened, is equipped to handle relocation. In

addition, the BIA has trust responsibility to both the Hopi and

Navajo Nations. Injecting the BIA into the relocation matter may

be a breach of the Federal trust responsibility that BIA has to both

tribes.

The Hopi Tribe fears that provisions of S. 1003 may delay final

relocation. The bill provides that relocation funds may be placed

into a trust for heirs of those who refused to relocate, rewarding

them for continued illegal occupation of Hopi lands. While the bill

establishes removal eviction requirements, it leaves much to the

discretion of the U.S. Attorney. Evictions should be mandatory and

deadlines or appeals should not stretch the process beyond 2008.

Finally, we are concerned that the Office of Relocation receives

sufficient time and funding necessary to complete its work. Certification deadlines for applying for relocation benefits must be reasonable and not arbitrary as to encourage legal challenges and

other delays. Congress must provide the Office of Relocation with

funding necessary for such substantive work as building houses for

relocated families.

My people are faced with many challenges, Senator, some of

which you have described, high unemployment, inadequate housing, lack of economic development on a semi-arid and remote homeland, and the erosion of our cultural traditions and our way of life.

We are faced with a very real thirst for survival. Too much of our

time and resources have been spent in a seemingly endless struggle

to preserve and protect what has been ours for two millennium,

what is most precious to us than life itself, our homeland.

The Hopi people ask that this committee help us in ending this

tortured chapter in our existence so that we may finally move on

to the creation of a viable homeland for future generations.

Chairman McCain, let me again thank you and members of this

esteemed committee for this opportunity to testify before you today.

I am ready for any questions.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Taylor appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

President Shirley and Chairman Taylor, suppose that you had

dictatorial powers. What would you do about the Bennett Freeze?

What would be your solution to the Bennett Freeze issue? We will

begin with you, President Shirley.

Mr. SHIRLEY. I do not know if I want dictatorial powers, Senator

The CHAIRMAN. Some say the president of the Navajo Nation has

close to it. [Laughter.]

Seriously, in other words, if you had a magic wand and said,

okay, this is the way we settle the Bennett Freeze. This is important because we are going to try to address that issue.
72

Mr. SHIRLEY. I hope there is a time, Senator, when the Hopi Nation and the Navajo Nations live together harmoniously. I guess I

would like to get back to that. I know many of our children are

inter-married, meaning that Navajo people are married to Hopi

people, and so we have children who are Hopi and Navajo. I think

also with the Hopi Nation. I think the two nations at this point in

time, and working with Chairman Taylor and with the Council to

try to resolve just that, the Bennett Freeze. We have not resolved

it. Hopefully, we begin to see the harmonious relationship that has

gotten away from us and to begin to develop our lands the way we

should. That is what I would like to see.

The CHAIRMAN. You would like to see it lifted?

Mr. SHIRLEY. Yes; I would like to see it lifted, sir. I think that

is what we need.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Chairman McCain, the 1934 Land Settlement Act

is in litigation between the two tribes, as you well know. We have

been waiting on the District Court to pick this matter back up. We

have waited for a very long time. It is still on the docket.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this. Suppose we lifted the Bennett Freeze tomorrow. What do you think would ensue on the Bennett Freeze? Would it be chaos? Would it be people trying to move

in on other people’s land? What do you think would happen?

Mr. TAYLOR. Chairman McCain, in fact what I was getting ready

to say is we have been in the negotiations, and in fact have reached

agreement and have developed a compact which would settle this

lawsuit. In fact, the Hopi Tribal Council has already ratified this

agreement and we are awaiting on the Navajo Council to do likewise.

The CHAIRMAN. And roughly the outlines of that agreement

would be?

Mr. TAYLOR. The lands have been largely partitioned. What is remaining, Chairman McCain, are in the case of the Hopi, the sacred

sites, the religious sites that we have remaining on the Navajo

1934 areas. We want those areas to be protected and we want to

have access to all those areas so that we can continue to practice

our religious duties and responsibilities.

The CHAIRMAN. President Shirley, your version of this compact?

Mr. SHIRLEY. We are very diligently working together, the two

nations, to come to agreement about the compact, sir. I think if we

can continue to do that, I think in short order we will have that

agreement. The Navajo Nation Council has been apprised of it.

They are looking at it. I think, God willing, maybe we will have an

agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. Within the year?

Mr. SHIRLEY. Giving caution, I would like to see it within the

year.

Mr. TAYLOR. Chairman McCain, again the Hopi Tribal Council

has already approved the compact. We are anxious to see it happen

this year. That would, in effect, also lift the Bennett Freeze.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Attorney General, do you have a comment

on that?

Mr. DENETSOSIE. Thank you, Senator. The terms of the compact

are subject to a confidentiality agreement. Unfortunately, we can-
73

not really divulge the details in it. The negotiations involve a senior judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as the mediator. He

also signed onto the confidentiality agreement, so we are very cautious about that.

It is impossible to predict when the two tribes will carve out the

final terms. Like we said, it could be this year or it could be next

year. That is the best we can say, but we look forward to the assistance of the United States, not only the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife, and the United States Senate in helping us

resolve this quite in the near future, I hope.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not have to tell any of the witnesses

that it is a national shame and disgrace the conditions that exist

in the Bennett Freeze area. It is long overdue that addressed it,

and I hope that this compact or agreement may be consummated

as soon as possible so we can let those people get on with some

kind of development. President Shirley, so keep us informed, would

you?

The Paragon Ranch in New Mexico was purchased with the intent that the coal reserves would generate revenues that would in

turn reimburse the Navajo Rehabilitation Trust Fund. It is my understanding there is no coal resources that are producing.

What do you intend to do with this land?

Mr. SHIRLEY. I will go ahead and have our Attorney General answer that, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Sure, whichever you want to.

Mr. DENETSOSIE. Honorable Senator, the land has not been

transferred to us at this point in time because of appeals by the

existing owners of the preference right lease applications. It is not

for lack of effort on our part, but there have been appeals within

the Bureau of Land Management and the appeals involve litigation. For those reasons, we still have not acquired the resources.

When we do get the resources, then we can look at the opportunities available for development of the coal resources. It is something

that is ongoing. There is a separate bill, as you are aware, through

the Natural Resource Committee of the Senate to try and resolve

that issue at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bitsuie, $16 million was appropriated for the

Rehabilitation Trust Fund. I understand that after the conceptual

framework was signed, these funds went into an interest-bearing

account that accrued an additional $8 million. I understand that

$11 million of that fund remains.

The appropriations were made between 1990 and 1995. Why has

there been a 10-year delay in spending that money?

Mr. BITSUIE. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government loaned the

Navajo Nation $16 million to fund the trust fund. We have spent

on community housing and other similar projects about $15 million

to $16 million. But the original loan has also generated another $8

million in interest, which is roughly the unexpended amount remaining in the account. We are using the interest from the $8 million to fund further projects. The $8 million itself has been earmarked by the Navajo Nation for critical land purchases. Those

land purchases have not been completed as the Navajo Nation is

being extremely careful in seeking to acquire lands that will actu-
74

ally generate revenue for addressing the adverse impact of the land

dispute for years to come.

We are stretching out and maximizing the value of the trust

fund. Land is very important in Navajo culture. For years, the policy of the Federal Government has been to increase tribal self-determination. In our judgment, we have appropriately allocated the

resources from the trust fund.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in my view, you haven’t. It was appropriated 10 and 15 years ago, and it has not been spent.

I am sure that if that had been the conditions under which it

was appropriated, the money would not have been appropriated. Mr. Bitsuie, the Land Commission received $1.5 million in 1998

from the Trust Fund to build or improve 48 replacement homes on

the HPL. What is the status of this project? That has only been 7

years.

Mr. BITSUIE. The Navajo Nation allocated $1.5 million from the

Trust Fund for the construction of 48 homes on Hopi partitioned

land. Under the accommodation agreement that has been entered

between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, we were instructed

to use or identify the land or have the land withdrawn for the accommodation signers to use the land within a certain period of

time. So the money was made available.

The $1.5 million only represents about one-half the cost of those

homes. In an effort to stretch trust fund dollars, we reached an

agreement with the Navajo Housing Services that they would provide labor. Unfortunately for their own financial reasons, the Navajo Housing Services was not able to fulfill its contractual commitment. Six homes were not built, but most of the other 42 have significant problems.

The Navajo Nation recently has committed another $800,000 to

fix the homes and complete the projects. When complete, the total

cost of this project to the trust fund for 48 homes of $2.3 million

is still a bargain. Today, it would cost about $100,000 per home,

as was provided by the Relocation Commission, Mr. Bavasi. To

build these homes, it would cost approximately $4.8 million. But

we will complete the homes at a cost of one-half of that amount,

Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. So if we waited another 20 years, it would prob- ably cost $1 million per home, so we should wait longer. Is that the

logic that you are giving me, Mr. Bitsuie?

Mr. BITSUIE. We are on a timeframe that we will complete the

renovation of these homes by the end of this year, as well as the

six homes that were not constructed, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Could I just ask, how often, President Shirley, do you and Chairman Taylor communicate with each other?

Mr. SHIRLEY. We communicate as often as is needed, sir, on the

different issues relative to the Bennett Freeze or whatever.

The CHAIRMAN. So you have good lines of communication?

Mr. SHIRLEY. Yes; we do.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. We do. Mr. Chairman, we do communicate quite frequently. This is just one of a number of issues that we are dealing

with. We are working together to preserve the Mojave plant, which
75

is a major part of the economic revenue stream for the two nations.

That also is another matter that takes tremendous amounts of our

time. We do work together with our teams on those projects.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that there are a lot of issues now,

maybe more than in the past, that exist that are in the mutual interests of both tribes. As you mentioned, the Mojave powerplant

situation, housing, the Bennett Freeze, pending compacts between

the two tribes. I would suggest that you two schedule a regularly

scheduled meeting as happens between leaders that have issues of

mutual interest, so that you can have an agenda, meet and see

what can be resolved and report back to the tribal councils and the

Hopi and Navajo people.

It is my suggestion, given the number of issues that exist that

are in the mutual interest of both tribes that you establish a set

of regularly scheduled meetings between the two of you, at least in

this period while we are addressing major issues that affect both

tribes. I encourage it. I am not saying that you must. I am just saying that it would be helpful to us to know the agenda that both

tribes are pursuing, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe are pursuing, in order to try to achieve some of these goals.

I think I started this hearing, and maybe I should close it by saying that when Congress gets involved in issues such as a land dispute, many times the law of unintended consequences is going to

prevail. I do not think anyone thought that in 1974 that we would

be sitting here 31 years later without some of these issues having

been resolved. I think that if in 1974 if the two tribal leaders had

been able to sit down and negotiate these issues out that we would

be discussing other important and compelling issues like education,

like health care, like housing. There are a number of issues that

clearly the Federal Government has not fulfilled its responsibilities

to either tribe. I would like to be able to put these issues behind

us so that we can concentrate on providing proper health care, education and housing to both tribes, which we all know is terribly

lacking and behind the rest of the Nation.

Do you have any comment, Chairman Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Senator, I think you are very much on point.

I could not agree with you more.

The CHAIRMAN. President Shirley.

Mr. SHIRLEY. A point well taken, sir. I totally agree.

The CHAIRMAN. It all, I think, is going to depend on, a lot of this

is going to depend on the cooperation between the two or you elected leaders. I am pleased to see that this relationship has matured

in a way that perhaps was not the case in previous Administrations in both organizations.
76

Mr. Attorney General, it is always a pleasure to see you again.

Do you have any other comments you would like to make?

Mr. DENETSOSIE. I am ready to leave for the Southwest. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bitsuie.

Mr. BITSUIE. Thank you very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We will work very closely

with you as we proceed on this issue. Thank you very much.

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon at 10:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(77)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. BAVASI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to provide testimony and answer any questions

you may have regarding the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation and its

position on the pending legislation.

In early June of this year, I and my staff met with members of the committee

staff, in Flagstaff, AZ for the purpose of giving comments on the original draft of

S. 1003. The Office is in agreement with the legislation’s projected date for completion of relocation and transfer of any remaining functions to a newly created Office

of Relocation within the Department of the Interior. I understand that the Administration opposes the language concerning enhanced retirement computation and the

Office of Personnel Management will be in touch with the committee in regards to

these concerns. Committee staff have already made some changes to the proposed

legislation based on recommendations from the Office and we believe the remaining

recommendations that the Office will put forth below are sufficiently important to

the efficient and timely completion of our mission and the closure of the Office, that

they should be implemented.

For convenience, the comments below are made by reference to page and line

numbers of the most recent version of S. 1003.

Page 13, lines 3–7. This change carries forward the Secretary’s authority to take

lands into trust acquired under section 1B, but has omitted the authority to take

into trust lands described under section 1A. Land selection has not been completed

in either of these categories and therefore, the Secretary’s authority to take lands

into trust should extend to both categories. The Office would therefore, recommend

that page 13, line 5 read, (1)(A) (1)(B).

Page 19, lines 11–13 and lines 23–25, page 52, lines 22–24 and page 59, line 25.

These three citations all deal with the termination of ONHIR authority, the establishment of the Office of Relocation within the Department of the Interior and the

date of commencement of the Secretary’s authority over transferred relocation activities. The original draft of the legislation included a date of September 30, 2008

for the termination of ONHIR and the transfer of the functions to the Secretary.

The original draft of the legislation stated that the Secretary’s authority commenced

with the enactment of the legislation. In the most recent version of the proposed

legislation that has been corrected to indicate that the effective date of the Secretary’s authority will be September 30, 2008. The only date not in synch with these

two dates is the date of the establishment of the Office of Relocation within DOI

which still reads October 1, 2006. The Office recommends that the date for the establishment of the Office of Relocation within the Department of the Interior be

changed to September 30, 2008 so that all three dates are consistent.

Page 22, line 16–19. This section states; ‘‘(d) P Prohibition.—No payment for benefits under this act may be made to any head of household, if as of September 30,
78

2005, that head of household has not been certified as eligible to receive the payment.’’ The Office has several comments in regard to this language.

(a) The prohibition conflicts with page 20, line 10–24 and page 30, line 1–2 of S.

1003 which provides that ‘‘a final determination is made by ONHIR for each appeal

described in paragraph (1) by not later than January 1, 2008.

(b) The prohibition conflicts with page 28, Line 15–23 of S. 1003 which requires

that eligibility determinations be made by ONHIR, ‘‘before July 1, 2008, but not

later than 90 days after receiving a notice of the imminent removal of a relocatee.

. . .’’

(c) The prohibition conflicts with page 30, line 4–25 which requires the Commissioner to provide notice not later than 30 days after the enactment of the Navajo

Hopi Settlement Act of 2005 to individuals who may have a right to a determination

of eligibility.

(d) This prohibition also conflicts with the Office’s recently arrived at agreement

with the Navajo-Hopi Legal Services Program to accept certain late applications and

certain appeals under very strict guidelines to prevent the possibility of litigation

on these clients. It is anticipated that fewer than 20 heads of household will become

eligible under this agreement with the Navajo-Hopi Legal Services Program. However, more time is required to complete the review of these cases and the prohibition

as stated above, would not allow the Office to fulfill its side of the agreement.

(e) The Office, therefore, recommends that the date in the above citation be

changed to September 30, 2008 for all of the reasons stated above, as well as for

the reason that it makes all of the transition and completion dates consistent.

4. Page 30, lines 4–25. The steps outlined in the referenced sections have already

been accomplished. The Office recommended this language in the 1996 legislation

in order to provide an organized vehicle for completing notifications and certifications prior to termination of the agency. Since the legislation was not enacted, the

Office implemented these steps under its regulations. To include this language

might necessitate the Office repeat steps already taken and might open the door to

further relocations and/or litigation. The Office recommends eliminating this entire

section.

5. Pages 47 and 48, section 202. The draft legislation cites an outdated section

of title 5 (5 U.S.C. 5597) which was DOD’s original authorization to provide separation incentives without OPM approval. DoD has since updated their Voluntary Separation authority under the NSPS law, 5 U.S.C. 9902 (see P.L. 108–136, sec. 1101).

We can use the existing voluntary separation authority under 5 U.S.C. 3523, recently updated under the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107–296, sec. 1313). This updated separation authority gives the agency head the option of offering $25,000 or

less for separations and provides the agency great flexibility in determining how,

when, and under what conditions these incentives will be offered—with OPM approval.

Mr. Chairman, That concludes my formal statement. I would be happy to try to

answer any questions the committee has for me and we look forward to working

with the committee to refine this legislation.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. RAGSDALE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William P. Ragsdale.

I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). I am pleased to be here

today to provide the Department’s views on S. 1003, a bill to amend the Navajo

Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974. We applaud Senator McCain for his efforts to

bring this 150 year dispute to a close. Although, we cannot support the bill as written, we would like to work with the committee to achieve a favorable result.

On December 16, 1882, President Chester Arthur signed an Executive order that

set aside approximately 2.5 million acres of land in northern Arizona for the Hopi

Tribe and ‘‘such other Indians as the Secretary may see fit to settle thereon.’’ At

the time of the 1882 Executive order, there was a small but indeterminate number

of Navajos residing on the portions of the reserved lands. Throughout the 1890’s and

to this day, members of the Hopi tribe and the Navajo Nation have disputed the

right to occupy lands within the 1882 reservation. In 1962, the Federal District

Court ruled that both the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation had joint rights to use

the 1882 Executive order reservation lands. The joint use proved unworkable. In

1974, Congress enacted legislation to resolve the joint use rights by partitioning the

land and relocating members of each tribe from lands adjudicated to the other tribe.

The 1974 Act provided relocation benefits to tribal members residing on lands partitioned to the other tribe, and established the Navajo and Hopi Relocation Commis-
79

sion to provide those benefits. To date, all Hopi families that were residing on Navajo land have been relocated and approximately 90 Navajo families are in some

stage of the relocation process.

S. 1003 The Department has several concerns with S. 1003. S. 1003, proposes to

terminate the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Office (Relocation Office) in 2008

and transfer any remaining responsibilities of the Relocation Office to the BIA. At

this point, as the Relocation Office is an independent agency, we are uncertain what

responsibilities would be transferred or the policies in effect at the Relocation Office

and therefore, we do not know exactly how this legislation would impact the BIA.

In addition, in light of not knowing the universe of responsibilities that the BIA

would be responsible for, we are concerned that the BIA does not have the necessary

expertise or resources to complete the work of the office. We have recently started

a dialog with the Relocation Office to determine the work the Office has accomplished and the manner in which it operates. We expect to learn the funding details

for these activities from the Relocation Office which will assist us in identifying any

limitations.

Furthermore, any transition would take time and could further delay any relocation activity. There are currently about 90 families that are in some phase of the

relocation process. Eight of these families are resistant to signing an accommodation

agreement, and a number of appeals are also in various phases of the appeals process. Any agreements will require significant coordination with the Navajo Nation.

It is difficult to predict how many of these cases will be resolved prior to relocating

and then ultimately terminating the Relocation Office, especially considering the

complex history of this relocation effort. Although under the Commission’s published

regulations the time for filing applications for relocation assistance has expired, applications continue to be filed. Therefore, we suggest specific deadlines be included

in the bill of when applications for new housing and any appeals have to be filed.

Without some specific timeframe, it will be extremely difficult to assess the BIA’s

future workload.

The BIA is also concerned with building houses for the relocated families. The

BIA has a very small program to assist tribes in their pursuit of funding for housing

repairs or renovations. We would suggest including the Department of Housing and

Urban Development in any discussions pertaining to housing assistance.

The Administration objects to the proposed language which would provide enhanced retirement benefits to Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation employees as

this is unfair compared to the benefits available to other similarly situated Federal

employees. The legislation also does not keep the Retirement Trust Fund whole for

the increased cost of these benefits. In addition to the Administration’s objection to

the retirement provisions, the Administration also has concerns with the new separation pay authorized in section 202. S. 1003 cites an outdated section of title 5 (5

U.S.C. 5597), which was the Department of the Defense’s (DOD) original authorization to provide separation incentives without Office of Personnel Management approval. DOD has since updated their Voluntary Separation authority under the National Security Personnel System law, 5 U.S.C. 9902 (see P.L. 108–136, sec. 1101).

Instead, existing voluntary separation authority under 5 U.S.C. 3523, recently updated under the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107–296, sec. 1313), should be used.

This updated separation authority gives the agency head the option of offering

$25,000 or less for separations and provides the agency flexibility in determining

how, when, and under what conditions these incentives will be offered—with OPM

approval.

Finally, we request that great care be taken to ensure that property interests are

not impacted by any changes contained in the legislation.

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions

you may have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE SHIRLEY, JR., PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION

Good Morning Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Dorgan. I thank you for

the opportunity to discuss the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Amendments with the

committee this morning. My name is Joe Shirley, Jr., I am the president of the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation last appeared before this committee regarding the

Navajo—Hopi Land Dispute in 1996. Since then five Congresses and two Administrations have had little interest in the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute. The Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, during that same period, have made significant progress

by working in a more collaborative approach with each other to resolve aspects of

the land dispute. These joint efforts between the Navajos and Hopis appears to be

moving both tribes to the conclusion of the land dispute. Following passage of the
80

Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996 and this committee’s consideration in the 104th Congress of S. 2111, a bill with similar intent to this bill, there

has been no action by this committee regarding the Land Dispute. I welcome this

opportunity to discuss the current status of these matters with the committee.

The Navajo Nation understands from the introductory comments of Chairman

McCain that he is concerned that the relocation process has cost far more than

originally estimated and taken too long to complete. The Navajo Nation vigorously

opposed the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 (‘‘relocation law’’) before its

passage and actively sought its repeal for years afterward. The Navajo Nation unfortunately failed in these efforts. Had the Navajo Nation been successful, the Navajo people would have been spared a tremendous harm and the Federal Government

would have been spared a great expense. That said, now that the Navajo people

have had to live through the nightmare of relocation, we do not think Federal budgetary issues alone should be a basis for limiting funds to complete the program, and

doing so in a way that brings humanity to what has otherwise been an inhumane

process. The chairman is concerned with cost. I ask the committee to consider how

they would estimate the cost of moving an entire town, and how they would value

the economic and social upheaval such a move would impose? This is what happened to the 12,000 Navajos who lost their land, their livelihood, and their identity;

12,000 people; approximately the population of Kingman, AZ. How much would it

cost to relocate the entire population of Kingman, to the Phoenix area? One billion

dollars? Two billion dollars? How long would it take if the funds were appropriated

bit-by-bit over 30 years? What would be the impact if the land these people were

expected to relocate to was already populated? What would happen if these people

suddenly had to unlearn their skills as farmers and learn to survive in a cash economy? How long would be too long? How much would be too much?

By far the greatest cost of the relocation program has been housing; the majority

of which has been completed. The costs that remain relate to items that support the

relocation process or ‘‘assist the Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe in meeting the burdens

imposed’’ by the relocation law (25 U.S.C. 640d–25) and are, therefore, very important.

Since 1996, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe have settled three major pieces

of litigation: The Use Case that arose from 25 U.S.C. §640d—17(a) (2); the Damage

Case that arose from 25 U.S.C. §640d—17 (a) (3); and the Tax case that arose from

25 U.S.C. §640-d7 and the continued joint ownership of minerals between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. The Use and Damage Cases concluded in 1999 when

the Navajo Nation paid the Hopi Tribe $29.1 million, and the Hopi provided the Nation with Satisfactions of Judgment in both the Use and Damage Cases. Nothing

remains of these lawsuits. Similarly, in 2002, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe

settled the Tax Case with a significant payment, equal to one-half of the taxes from

the Black Mesa Mine through 2007 were paid by the Nation to the Hopi Tribe.

Currently, with some assistance from the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (OHNIR) the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation are near resolving the final

aspects of relocation without any Navajo evictions from the Hopi Partitioned Land

(HPL). One of the more significant issues presented by S. 1003 in relation to this

potential for forced evictions is one of timing. Currently, S. 1003 requires OHNIR

to certify eligibility of all outstanding claims by September 30, 2005. I understand

that this date will be revised to September 30, 2008, such a change should avoid

the need for any forced relocation of Navajos because the contemplated agreement

can be implemented. Ideally, if more time is needed to complete these efforts with

the specter of eviction that time should be afforded. This is especially true where

interested parties are working together to complete difficult tasks.

Another major concern of S. 1003 relates to the Navajo Nation’s need and ability

to address the impacts of both the 1966 Bennett Freeze, and the 1980 Statutory

Freeze in the western portion of the Navajo Nation. Between the administrative and

statutory prohibitions on development the Nation is faced with approximately 1.5

million acres of its reservation that have had no meaningful development since before 1966. In 1997, The Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe entered into a stipulation

in the District Court that limited the development ban to approximately 700,000

acres that are currently subject to pending litigation. Upon resolution of the 1934

Act Reservation Case presumably the ban on development will cease, but these

lands and its approximately 5,000 residents will require special attention to bring

them up to the standards of other parts of the Navajo Nation. It is my understanding that the committee has chosen to address the Bennett and Statutory Freeze

issues in subsequent legislation and not in S. 1003. I therefore raise these issues

to reinforce their importance to the Navajo Nation.

S. 1003 raises other areas of specific concern including:
81

First, rehabilitation efforts should be focused on the Navajo Partitioned Land

(NPL). The NPL Navajo communities have borne much of the cost of the relocation,

having absorbed thousands of relocatees and their livestock in an area that has long

been at, or over, capacity. The NPL’s extremely limited infrastructure, already overtaxed by the influx of relocatees, was further constrained by the construction freeze

that was in place from 1963 until approximately 1979. This infrastructure continues

to be grossly insufficient to meet the current needs resulting from the relocation

law.

Second, the relocation law currently authorizes the Commissioner to make grants

‘‘which significantly assist the Commissioner or assist the Navajo Tribe or Hopi

Tribe in meeting the burdens’’ of the law (25 U.S.C. 640d–25). S. 1003 would strike

this provision (Section 122), but this is the very provision that provides ONHIR the

flexibility to address the needs of families and communities as they arise. Pursuant

to this provision, the Navajo Nation has proposed various projects such as a community center for the Navajo families that have signed Accommodation Agreements

with the Hopi Tribe, range and road improvement, power line extensions, and some

housing improvement for heavily impacted NPL host families. Although OHNIR has

not yet approved any of these proposals, they are exactly the kind of projects that

bring humanity to the relocation process while addressing the real needs that resulting from the process. Notably, the draft substitute bill that the committee staff

have released would restore the discretionary fund authorized by this section, but

would not retain the directing guidance that the funds are to be used to ‘‘assist the

Navajo Tribe or Hopi Tribe in meeting the burdens’’ of the law. The legislation

should preserve this guidance.

Third, the Navajo land selections in New Mexico should not be prejudiced. Section

107(c) of S. 1003 provides that the authority of the Commissioner to select lands

in New Mexico shall terminate on September 30, 2008. Since the Commissioner’s

authority would terminate on that date, it is not clear that this authority would continue in the new Office of Relocation at the Department of the Interior. The Navajo

Nation has not yet completed its New Mexico land selections due largely to circumstances beyond its control. Completion of some of those selections is the subject

of legislation introduced in this Congress, specifically S. 692, the Bisti/PRLA Dispute Resolution Act. The Navajo Nation is concerned that this provision in S. 1003

could impact that selection process and potentially prejudice Navajo interests. This

authority should be carried over in to the Department of the Interior if the selections are not completed by September 30, 2008.

Fourth, the transfer of ONHIR’s Responsibilities to the Department of the Interior. ONHIR has developed critical and hard-won experience in working on and near

the Navajo Nation and is ideally suited to addressing the rehabilitation of the Bennett and Statutory Freeze areas. Based on this institutional knowledge ONHIR

should not be eliminated, although it certainly can be downsized. However, whether

ONHIR is maintained, or its responsibilities are transferred to a new Office of Relocation in the Department of the Interior, it is critically important to the Navajo Nation that the issues set forth above are adequately and fully addressed. Only by

completing all the necessary tasks can this chapter be closed without future repercussions.

I strongly believe that all Navajos want to put the Land Dispute with the Hopis

behind and move forward. In order for the Nation to do that, the final tasks that

will complete Relocation in a just and humane fashion must be accomplished. One

alternative approach that the committee may want to consider rather than S. 1003

as presently crafted, would be to evaluate and enumerate all the tasks that ONHIR

needs to perform to finish its tasks, with input from the Navajo Nation and the

Hopi Tribe, then set out a reasonable timeframe to accomplish those tasks. That

timeframe could be used as a period that begins after passage of the legislation to

complete the tasks identified. Such an approach may not have worked prior to 1996,

but in the present collaborative era the Nation, ONHIR, and the Hopi Tribe can devise a plan to take these final steps. The Navajo Nation wants this dispute behind

us, but we do not want to leave individuals behind.

In addition to my comments, the Navajo Nation attorney general has prepared

comments on certain specific legal issues presented by S. 1003. Those matters are

also of special concern because of their impact on cases currently pending in the

Courts or the impact these provisions may have on individuals seeking relocation

benefits. Roman Bitsuie, the executive director of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission Office, will discuss the efforts of the Office to serve the relocatees.
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171

Æ